Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Central London and Metropolitan District Railway Companies Bill,

To be read the Third time To-morrow.

London County Council (Money) Bill,

To be read a Second time upon Friday.

Malvern Hills Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Bill [Lords],

To be read a Second time To-morrow.

St. Andrews Links Order Confirmation Bill,

Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

SEDITION AND SLANDER, CAWNPORE.

Earl WINTERTON: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what are the actual terms of the charge in the case now being heard at Cawnpore against certain persons accused of sedition; and in what Court the case is being taken?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Richards): The accused persons are charged with conspiring to deprive the King of the sovereignty of British India, an offence punishable under Section 121A of the Indian Penal Code. The trial is being held in the Court of Session at Cawnpore. I would like to make it quite clear that the accused persons are not being prosecuted merely for
holding Communist views or carrying on Communistic propaganda. They are charged with having conspired to secure by violent revolution the complete separation of India from Imperialistic Britain, and in that endeavour they formed and attempted to make use of a Workers' and Peasants' Association in India.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the subscription list for the defence of these revolutionaries stands in the name of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury).

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that both prisoners and other persons deny that they are guilty of the offence for which they are being tried, and that many prisoners are not judged guilty until a verdict has been recorded against them? Does not the hon. Gentleman think it is a gross abuse of the privileges of this House to interfere in this way before the trial?

Mr. SPEAKER: These questions have nothing to do with the matter.

Colonel Sir CHARLES YATE: Having regard to the subscriptions by the Communist party, is there any evidence to show that this conspiracy has been engineered from this country?

Mr. RICHARDS: No.

Earl WINTERTON: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the inquiry is likely to be concluded?

Mr. RICHARDS: I understand the trial has already concluded. I expected the verdict on Friday last.

Earl WINTERTON: In view of the great importance of this matter, will the hon. Gentleman consider publishing a White Paper, or laying information on the Table, explaining what were the real facts about this very remarkable case?

Mr. RICHARDS: I will make that suggestion to my Noble Friend.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the hon. Member also ask the Secretary of State to publish the whole of the evidence?

Mr. RICHARDS: I will do so.

TARIFF COMMITTEE (RECOMMENDATIONS).

Earl WINTERTON: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if it is the intention of the Government of India to introduce a Bill into the Indian Assembly during the present year to give effect to the recommendations of the Indian Tariff Committee; and, if so, what will be the approximate date of such introduction?

Mr. RICHARDS: The Government of India propose to introduce a Bill in the Legislative Assembly about the end of this month on the lines of the recommendations contained in the Report of the Tariff Board regarding the grant of protection to the steel industry.

Earl WINTERTON: Will it be possible to communicate to the House the provisions of the Bill, either by putting a copy in the Library or in some other way, in view of the great interest taken in the matter?

Mr. RICHARDS: I will consider that.

Mr. WIGNALL: Can the hon. Gentleman say what steps have been taken, or are intended to be taken, to bring before the Legislative Council the serious effect of this tariff on the trade of this country?

Mr. RICHARDS: I should like to remind my hon. Friend that where the Legislative Council of the Government of India have agreed upon questions affecting tariffs, the Secretary of State makes it a practice not to interfere.

BOLSHEVIK PROPAGANDA.

Sir C. YATE: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the reports in the Indian Press of the recent riot at Cawnpore when an order was given to the police to fire by an Indian magistrate; and if he can state what steps are being taken by the Government of India to protect these magistrates in the performance of their duty to the public from the attacks made upon them by extremist journals and non-official manifestoes?

Mr. RICHARDS: I have seen a paragraph on the subject in an English paper published in India. Flagrant cases of sedition and slander are constantly dealt with and effective action can be, and is, taken against the authors. Whether in any particular instance such action is practicable and desirable can best be
judged by the authorities immediately concerned. I have no reason to suppose that they neglect this duty.

Sir C. YATE: Can the hon. Gentleman give me any instance where this action has been taken?

Mr. BECKER: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he can give any information to the House as to the continuance, or otherwise, of Russian Bolshevik propaganda in India?

Mr. RICHARDS: The Secretary of State has no evidence of any change in the situation in respect of Bolshevik propaganda.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the tremendous amount of money that is being used by the other side in trying to down the principles of Socialism in this country?

CIVIL SERVICE (LEE COMMISSION REPORT).

Mr. WALTER BAKER: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether it is intended to comply with the wish expressed in the Indian Legislative Assembly that the Report of the Lee Commission should be published simultaneously in India and England, and that no Orders thereon should be passed without the Report being discussed in that Assembly?

Mr. MILLS: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether it is intended to comply with the wish expressed in the Indian Legislative Assembly that the Report of the Lee Commission should be published simultaneously in India and England, and that no Orders thereon should be passed without the Report being discussed in that Assembly?

Mr. RICHARDS: I will answer these questions together. The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

ALIPORE CONSPIRACY (ARRESTS).

Mr. MILLS: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that seven young Bengalis were arrested in the Alipore conspiracy case between the 4th and 14th August, 1923, and put on trial on criminal charges involving capital punishment; that this trial took place before a judge and jury,
and resulted on 17th April, 1924, in the unanimous verdict of the jury acquitting all seven accused, in which verdict the judge stated he concurred, and that, immediately after the judge had directed that they should be set at liberty, four of them were arrested under Bengal Regulation III, of 1818, and interned without any charge being made against them or any possibility of their insisting on being brought to trial; and whether, in view of the fact that these men have been in custody for eight months on charges of which, after trial, they have been found not guilty, he will give instructions for their immediate release?

Mr. RICHARDS: I am aware of this matter, and I understand that the facts are stated with substantial accuracy in the question. My Noble Friend is at present awaiting further information from the Government of India, and expects to receive it by an early mail.

Mr. MILLS: Will the Secretary of State also make inquiries into the manner in which confessing prisoners who turned King's evidence were kept in close seclusion for three or four weeks pending their evidence, which was subsequently proved to be police-manufactured and false?

COMPARISON OF THE PAY AND ALLOWANCES OF BRITISH SOLDIERS SERVING IN INDIA AND AT HOME.


Warrant Officer Class II. with wife and two children.


In England.
For month of 30 days.
In India.
Per month.


Equivalent at 1s. 5d.* the rupee to
£21 7s. 7d.
—
—


Rs. 301.13.1
—
Rs. 321.5.3.


Sergeant with wife and three children.


Equivalent at 1s. 5d.* the rupee to
£14 6s. 1d.
—
—


Rs. 201.15.0
—
Rs. 224.14.1


Private with wife and three children.


Equivalent at 1s. 5d.* the rupee to
£9 1s. 1d
—
—


Rs. 127.13.1
—
Rs. 150.12.1


* The rate of exchange for the rupee is at present approximately 1s. 5d.

Sir C. YATE: 10.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the calculations supplied to him, showing that a married lieutenant ordered to India of over seven years' service loses pay at the rate of £63 per annum and under seven years' service £68 per annum, and that married quartermasters, whose pay

Captain BERKELEY: Are we to understand that the Government acquiesces in the invocation of a regulation more than 100 years old in order to deprive British subjects of their immemorial rights to a fair and speedy trial?

Mr. RICHARDS: My Noble Friend is awaiting further information on the subject.

ARMY (PAY).

Sir C. YATE: 9.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the consolidated monthly rupee allowances now granted to married soldiers serving in India are equal in all respects to those granted at home; and if the calculations supplied to him to the effect that married warrant, non-commissioned officers and men serving in India lose, respectively, £49 14s., £20 12s. 6d., and £16 2s. 6d. per annum have been verified, and with what result?

Mr. RICHARDS: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table, giving a comparison between the pay and allowances of these ranks at home and in India.

Following is the table:

depends on length of service as such, lose by service in India in every grade, have now been verified; and will he state what is the exact disparity between the home and Indian rates of pay in the case of these married lieutenants and quartermasters.

Mr. RICHARDS: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table giving a comparison between the pay of these officers at home and in India. I understand that very few lieutenants in this country are in receipt of pay as married officers. The hon. and gallant Member is of course aware that a comparison of this kind without reference to other considerations

COMPARISON of the monthly pay and allowances of married regimental Lieutenants of the British Service at home and in India.


—
British pay and allowances, less British Income Tax converted at 1s. 5d.*
Indian pay, less Indian Income Tax.
Superiority of British over Indian pay.




Rs.
a.
p.
Rs.
a.
p.
Rs.
a.
p.


Lieutenant:


On promotion
…
524
—
—
460
3
—
63
13
—










(£54 4s. 10d. p.a.)


After 7 years' service
…
581
14
—
532
13
—
49
1
—










(£41 14s. 1d. p.a.)


Second Lieutenant and Lieutenant (except those of Quartermaster class) who are married, and who were commissioned after serving in the ranks on normal peace attestations and who were married when so commissioned receive with the above Indian rates of a pay a marriage allowance of Rs. 100 p.m. for the wife and Rs. 25 p.m. for each child, subject to maximum of Rs. 150 p.m.

MINES (CHILD LABOUR).

Lieut.-Colonel MEYLER: 12.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India how many children are employed in underground work in mines in India, and what

such as the level of prices in the two countries may be misleading.

Sir C. YATE: Is it realised that the cost of living in India has enormously increased?

Mr. RICHARDS: Allowance has been made for that.

Following is the table promised:

are the minimum and average ages of such children?

Mr. RICHARDS: The number of children below 12 years of age employed in underground work in mines in British
India in 1922—the last year for which figures are available—was 2,554. I cannot state the minimum and average ages of such children. The new Mines Act which comes into force on 1st July next, not only prohibits the employment of children under 13 in mines, but also their presence at all in mines below ground.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the minimum age now in force?

Mr. RICHARDS: The minimum age now is 12.

GREAT BRITAIN AND RUMANIA.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any political conversations have taken place between His Majesty's Foreign Office and the Foreign Minister of Rumania during the visit of His Majesty the King of Rumania; if so, what were the subjects discussed; and whether any agreements or understandings have been arrived at?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald): No formal political conversations were held with M. Duca, and such informal discussion as took place was of an entirely general, and not of a specific character. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

BRITISH BOOKS, UNITED STATES.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received complaints in regard to the confiscation by the United States Customs authorities of books exported to the United States by reputable firms in this country; and whether he has addressed any representations to the United States Government on the subject?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative. But if the noble Lord will send me particulars of the case he has in mind I shall consider it.

Mr. MILLS: Supposing unlimited copies are sent to the United States of America, what will happen?

Captain Viscount CURZON: Are hypothetical questions allowed?

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

SOVIET GOVERNMENT (EXECUTIVE HEAD).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 18.
asked the Prime Minister who is the executive head of the present Russian Soviet Government from whom the powers of the negotiators at present in London are derived?

The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that the powers of the Soviet delegation are derived from the President of the Council of the People's Commissaries of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Sir W. DAVISON: Has the Prime Minister seen the letter in to-day's "Times" from Lord Emmott, in which he states that the triumvirate that now governs Russia is composed of three gentlemen, Stelin, Zinovieff and Kameneff, and does he agree with that statement as being correct?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not agree with that statement so far as I am Foreign Secretary, and have to deal with the Russian Government through official channels.

PROPAGANDA.

The following question stood on the Order Paper in the name of

Sir LEONARD LYLE: 20. To ask the Prime Minister whether his advisers are assured that no political propaganda is being carried on by the Russian representatives who are now in this country?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. Would this question be permitted if it referred to the plenipotentiaries of any other State?

Mr. SPEAKER: This is a matter, I suppose, which refers to the Trade Agreement that at present exists.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is not this an attack on the representatives of a friendly Power whom we have recognised? Does it not make reflections upon them? Would it be permitted in the case of any other Power?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think we had better first have the answer.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it in accordance with the practice of this House to permit attacks in the House on foreign diplomats who are here on a friendly mission?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have often said that no question ought to contain an innuendo. Members often exercise their skill as against my faithful assistants in this matter, and sometimes they may get through the net.

Sir W. DAVISON: Are you aware, Sir, that the Prime Minister himself anticipated that this delegation might be guilty of "monkey tricks"?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is impossible that we should allow insinuations of this kind as between our Government and a friendly Government. The Government of Russia has been recognised by His Majesty, and must be treated as any other foreign Government.

Sir L. LYLE: In view of the disclosures which have recently come to light both in Canada and in Germany with regard to similar delegations, should not the Government make the most searching inquiries?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now transgressing the very rule which I have laid down.

Sir L. LYLE: On a point of Order. May I not put a question asking whether the Government is taking steps to see that what happened in other countries shall not happen here?

Viscount CURZON: Is it not common knowledge that the existence of political propaganda on the part of Russia has been a cause of dispute between the two countries?

Mr. SPEAKER: The point is that this delegation, which is negotiating with this country, must be treated in the same way as any other delegation from any other country.

The PRIME MINISTER: The Soviet delegates are here on a friendly mission, and unless and until definite evidence to the contrary is forthcoming, it is to be presumed that they will abstain from actions which could only stultify the negotiations now pending.

ANGLO-RUSSIAN CONFERENCE.

Viscount CURZON: 28.
asked the Prime Minister whether before the Whitsuntide Recess he will be able to make a statement on the progress or otherwise of the Anglo-Russian Conference?

The PRIME MINISTER: The matters under consideration are not only intricate but cover a very wide field, but I intend to make a full statement to the House when the negotiations now proceeding have reached a stage which justifies my reporting to Parliament on them.

Viscount CURZON: Could the right hon. Gentleman not say anything before Whitsuntide?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not want to commit myself to a date, but I can assure the Noble Lord that it is not my intention to withhold the Report from the House of Commons any longer than is necessary.

Captain BRASS: What benefits have accrued from the recognition of Russia up to the present?

The PRIME MINISTER: Very considerable ones.

Captain BRASS: What are they?

ADMIRALTY AND AIR BOARD.

Commander BELLAIRS: 19.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement as to the arrangements come to on the matters in dispute between the Admiralty and the Air Board on which inquiry has taken place?

The PRIME MINISTER: Satisfactory progress has been made. The Admiralty, after consultation with the Air Ministry, have issued a Fleet Order calling for volunteers from the Navy for Fleet air work in which the conditions of service are set forth. Conversations are taking place between the two Departments on certain questions of detail.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Will an explanation be given to the House as to what arrangements have been come to in regard to the co-operation of the Air and Navy arm?

The PRIME MINISTER: I should think so, but perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put a question to the Air Minister.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: Is the Prime Minister aware that a statement has not yet been issued on the outstanding question?

The PRIME MINISTER: I was not aware, but that is a matter for the Air Ministry.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH FREE STATE.

REPRESENTATIVE AT WASHINGTON.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: 21.
asked the Prime Minister if the Irish Free State have appointed an independent Irish representative at Washington?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Thomas): No, Sir. The position was explained in the reply which I gave to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Blackpool on the 30th April.

FISHING BYE-LAWS.

Lord STANLEY: 34 and 35.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether the final decision regarding the extra-territorial application of the bye-laws relating to fishing off the coast of the Irish Free State has yet been arrived at; and, if so, is he prepared to make known such decision now;
(2) whether he is aware of the fact that, notwithstanding his statement that pending the settlement of the question the Irish Free State has decided not to institute proceedings for infraction of the bye-laws outside the three-mile limit, a summons has actually been served on Mr. W. E. Ash, skipper of the trawler "Shackleton"; and whether he will make representations to the Irish Free State authorities regarding this subject?

Mr. GWILYM LLOYD GEORGE: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, despite the assurances given by the Irish Free State Government, summonses have been issued to British fishermen for alleged contravention of certain bye-laws; and whether, as the article of the Irish Free State Constitution embracing these bye-laws is still under consideration between the two Governments, he will approach the Free State Government with a view to having these summonses held up until a decision is arrived at?

Mr. THOMAS: I propose to reply to these questions together. It has quite recently been brought to my notice that proceedings are being taken in the Irish Free State in respect of alleged infractions
of the Fishery Bye-laws outside the three-mile limit, and I have addressed a communication to the Free State Government on the subject last week. I am not in a position to make any further statement pending the receipt of a reply to this and earlier communications.

Lord STANLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman state when a decision is likely to be reached, not on the question of the summons, but in regard to the general fishing question?

Mr. C. HEALY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the fishing along the Irish coast has been practically, ruined by trawlers subsidised by British companies outside?

Mr. THOMAS: That is not the question. The question is, can it be determined really by giving a definite date? As a matter of fact, the House may not be aware that the Irish Free State is acting in accordance with precisely the same Regulations as if there had been no Free State in existence; in other words, there is no change of law whatever, and the request that would be made to them would be to niter the British law rather than otherwise.

AIRSHIPS (CONTRACT).

Sir S. HOARE: 22
asked the Prime Minister whether he will immediately circulate as a White Paper the contract signed between the Government and a commercial group with reference to the construction of our airships?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Leach): I have been asked to reply. The contract has not yet been signed, but agreement, with the Airship Guarantee Company has been reached on all points of substance and the draft is being submitted to the legal advisers on both sides. I should perhaps point out that, as provision for the development of airships was omitted from the Air Estimates pending a decision by the Government on the policy to be adopted, the contract will not be signed until the necessary Supplementary Estimate has been taken. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air proposes to give a full account of the Government proposals on Wednesday in another place, and I shall, of course, in introducing the
Supplementary Estimate, be prepared to give this House any further details in my power

Sir S. HOARE: Will the hon. Gentleman circulate a White Paper giving the details before we have a debate in this House?

Mr. LEACH: If I find it possible, I will.

NAVAL ARMAMENTS (LIMITATION).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 23
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the eight cruisers which it has been decided to lay down for the United States Navy were originally proposed by the United States Navy Department, but that they were eliminated from the Budget before presentation to Congress; that on the news being received of the intention of His Majesty's Government to lay down five additional cruisers the eight United States cruisers were reintroduced into Congress by the House Committee on Naval Affairs; and whether, in view of the above, he will consider inviting this House to make some definite response to the recommendation of Congress to the President of the United States of America for the calling of a new conference on the limitation of naval armaments and, in the meantime, will he delay further work on the proposed new British cruisers?

The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to the first and second parts of the question, I understand that the reason for the elimination of the cruiser programme from the Naval Appropriations Bill before presentation to Congress is that Congressional authorisation had not previously been obtained for this new construction, and that therefore it could not be included in the Bill, but had to be embodied in a separate Bill re-introduced into Congress. The events have been decided by rules of procedure, and, as far as His Majesty's Government are aware, no considerations connected with the British programme of cruiser construction entered into the matter. With regard to the last part of the question, I must refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to him on the 12th May by the Leader of the House, and to the answer of the Leader of the House given to the hon. Member for the Rusholme Division of Manchester on the 27th March.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In view of what has happened in Congress since we ordered our five cruisers, would not the right hon. Gentleman consider that it would help the negotiations, which we all want to do, if we could retard our programme, particularly having regard to the great speed of British shipbuilding?

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Is it not quite clear that the decision of the United States was taken before we decided on our programme?

The PRIME MINISTER: There is no connection between what happened in America and what happened here. Moreover, I have the very best reason for stating that there is no misunderstanding in America with regard to our intentions.

Captain BERKELEY: Are we to understand that it had been decided to proceed with this American programme irrespective of our programme?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.

HOUSING (RENT RESTRICTION AND EVICTIONS).

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 24.
asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to introduce any further legislation relating to rent restriction or evictions?

The PRIME MINISTER: A new situation has arisen, as the result of the withdrawal from Standing Committee A of the Rent Restrictions Bill, which is at present engaging the attention of the Government.

Sir K. WOOD: When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to announce the result?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving facilities for the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Rugby?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Government are at present giving attention to the whole matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — TURKEY.

BONDHOLDERS.

Sir F. WISE: 25.
asked the Prime Minister what is the action of the
Turkish Government in reference to the conditions laid down by the decrees of 1881 and 1903 governing the contracts with the bondholders?

The PRIME MINISTER: Since March, 1920, the Council of the Ottoman Public Debt has been deprived of the control over the revenues assigned to it by the Decrees of 1881 and 1903 in parts of Anatolia. The Turkish Government has been continuing this process, and, according to a recent telegram from His Majesty's representative at Constantinople, the last remaining offices of the Ottoman Public Debt which were collecting the assigned revenues have now received orders to sever their connection with the debt administration, and to remit their funds direct to the Turkish Government.

OTTOMAN DEBT.

Sir F. WISE: 26.
asked the Prime Minister if His Majesty's Government, when they occupied Palestine and Iraq, seized the sums in the hands of the agencies of the Council of Administration of the Ottoman Public Debt; if they suppressed these agencies; and if they collected and appropriated the revenue ceded to the bondholders in these territories?

The PRIME MINISTER: When British military forces occupied Palestine and Iraq, the agencies of the Council for the Administration of the Ottoman Public Debt were not suppressed, but the sums in their hands and the revenues collected by them were placed in a suspense account in order that they might be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the future Treaty of Peace. In conformity with the provisions of the Treaty with Turkey, the revenues in Palestine and Iraq, formerly assigned to the Ottoman Debt Council, have now been treated as part of the revenues of those countries.

Sir F. WISE: Have those amounts come back to the credit of the bondholders?

The PRIME MINISTER: They are now being treated as part of the revenues of these countries.

TREATY OF MUTUAL GUARANTEE.

Mr. JOHN HARRIS: 27.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of his
announcement that he intends informing the League of Nations before the meeting of the next Assembly of the attitude of His Majesty's Government upon the Treaty for Disarmament and Guarantee Pact, he will take an early opportunity of laying before Parliament the main lines of policy in this matter and provide adequate time for discussion?

The PRIME MINISTER: The matter is not at a stage where discussion in this House immediately would serve any useful purpose. In view of public business I cannot promise to give a day from Government time for this purpose.

Mr. J. HARRIS: Will an opportunity for debate be given in this House before the policy of His Majesty's Government is stated to the Council of the League?

The PRIME MINISTER: There will be various opportunities by which other sections of the House can call for a Debate if desired.

Oral Answers to Questions — THAMES BRIDGES.

Viscount CURZON: 29.
asked the Prime Minister whether, before any allocation of public funds is made for any purpose in connection with the construction of a bridge at St. Paul's over the Thames, he will undertake that an opportunity shall be afforded to the House of Commons for discussion of the proposal?

The PRIME MINISTER: A grant of £866,000 from the Road Fund has been offered towards the construction of approaches to the proposed St. Paul's Bridge, the necessary legislation for the construction of which was passed by Parliament as far back as 1911. The Government are, however, prepared to submit the question to the Advisory Committee which it is proposed to set up under the London Traffic Bill.

Viscount CURZON: Can we have an assurance that this money will not be spent before Parliament has "had an opportunity of discussing the matter, in view of the very debatable point as to the necessity, or otherwise, of this bridge?

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon Gentleman aware that quite a new-state of affairs has occurred, by reason of the threatened collapse of Waterloo Bridge, since the Ministry of Transport
arranged to pay this sum in connection with St. Paul's Bridge? Is it not desirable that the Government should get into immediate touch with the Corporation of London on the matter?

The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that the new circumstances are taken into account, and that the matter is in course of handling.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLICITOR-GENERAL.

Major HORE-BELISHA: 31.
asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to take steps to facilitate the return of the Solicitor-General to this House or to appoint another Solicitor-General in his place, in order that this House may not be deprived of the full legal assistance to which it is entitled?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on 10th March in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull East.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Is the Prime Minister afraid to put the Solicitor-General's knighthood to the test of battle?

Sir K. WOOD: Does the Prime Minister think it right to go on paying the Solicitor-General when duties, which include attendance in this House, cannot be fulfilled?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that if the precedent is bad, it is a precedent which comes from the other side.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.

CONFERENCES.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House the number and names of the conferences which have already been arranged to take place at the British Empire Exhibition?

Mr. LUNN (Secretary, Department of Overseas Trade): I have been asked to reply. The total number of conferences which it has been arranged to hold at the British Empire Exhibition is 58. As the list is a long one, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The list is as follows:

LIST OF BODIES ORGANISING CONFERENCES, ETC.

Organisers.

Alliance of Honour (Conference on Moral Education).

Associated Advertising Clubs of the World (International Advertising Convention).

British Engineers' Association.

British Federation of University Women.

British Legion.

British Women's Temperance Association.

British Glasshouse Produce Marketing Association.

British Israel World Federation.

British Drama League.

British Confederation of Arts.

British Missionary Societies (Conference for Teachers on Life in other Lands) (Christian Missions in the Empire and Beyond).

British Science Guild (Conference on Science and Labour).

Cremation Society of England.

Charity Organisation Society.

College of Nursing.

Central Association for Mental Welfare.

World Power Conference.

Eugenics Education Society.

Empire Mining and Metallurgical Congress.

Faraday Society (physico-chemical problems relating to textile fabrics).

Gas Association.

Health Propaganda Association (Conference on Cancer and Health).

Horace Plunkett Foundation and Presidents of the English, Irish, Scotch and Welsh Agricultural Organisation Societies (Conference on Agricultural Co-operation in the British Empire).

India Society (Conference on Indian Art).

International Council of Women.

Industrial Christian Fellowship (Women's Section).

Industrial Christian Fellowship (Men's Section).

Incorporated Federated Associations of Boot and Shoe Manufacturers of Great Britain and Ireland.

Imperial Studies Committee (Conference on Imperial Education).

Institution of Automobile Engineers.

Institution of Municipal and County Engineers.

Illuminating Engineers' Society.

Incorporated Municipal Electrical Association.

Institute of Transport.

League of Nations Union.

London School of Dalcroze Eurhythmies.

Museums Association.

Missionary Settlement for University Women.

National Baby Week Council.

National Council of Women of Great Britain and Ireland (British National Council of Women).

National Council of Women of Canada.

National Council for Combating Venereal Disease.

National Children Adoption Association.

National Association of Goldsmiths.

Parents' National Education Union.

People's League of Health.

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

Royal Ancient Order of Buffaloes.

Sociological Society and British Section International Association of Labour Legislation (Conference on British Empire and International Labour Legislation).

Society of Dyers and Colourists.

School of Oriental Studies and Sociological Society (Conference on Living Religions within the Empire).

Textile Institute (Imperial Textile Conference).

The British Institute of Industrial Art (Conference on Industrial Art).

Universal Fellowship Conferences (Women's Housing Council, etc.), (Conference on Social Work in the New Age).

Women's House Property Managers.

World's Evangelical Alliance.

Women's International League.

Young Women's Christian Association of Great Britain.

Zenana Bible Medical Mission.

DIRECTIONAL SIGNPOSTS.

Captain BRASS: 45.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he is aware of the difficulty motorists have in finding the road to the British Empire Exhibition at Wembley from the centre of London; and, in view of this fact, whether he will issue instructions for directional signposts to be erected in such positions as to indicate the route, which signs would serve a double purpose, that of indicating the route and advertising the exhibition?

Mr. LUNN: The erection of signposts is a matter for the Minister of Transport
who has, I understand, been in communication with the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in regard to the direction of vehicular traffic to the British Empire Exhibition. I understand, moreover, that signs for the direction of motorists, not only from London, but also from other parts of the country, are being prepared and that it is hoped to erect a certain number this week. I am also informed that the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police proposes to issue to the Press, at an early date, advice as to the best means of approaching Wembley from the centre of London.

BRITISH COMMERCIAL ATTACHÉS.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 46.
asked the Par liamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether it would be possible to arrange a visit of British Commercial Attachés to the British Empire Exhibition so as to enable them to give first-hand information upon their return to prospective buyers in the various countries to which they were accredited?

Mr. LUNN: I am doing my best to arrange that as many officers as possible from the Commercial Diplomatic Service should have facilities for visiting the British Empire Exhibition.

EMPIRE-GROWN WINE.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 47.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether Empire-grown wine is available at each restaurant where wine is sold at the British Empire Exhibition?

Mr. LUNN: The answer is in the affirmative.

LABOUR CONDITIONS.

Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: 48.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he can state the results of his conference with the authorities of the British Empire Exhibition and others concerned with regard to labour conditions at Wembley and whether he is now satisfied that proper provision is to be made for the health and well-being of those employed in connection with the exhibition, including safeguards as to hours and rates of wages?

Mr. LUNN: As a result of the conference which was held on the on the 16th instant, I hope that it will be possible to constitute a works committee on which the various interests and which will be represented and which will facilitate the adjustment of any disputes in connection with the conditions of employment at the British Empire Exhibition. With regard to the second part of the question, I am hopeful that in any cases in which existing conditions are unsatisfactory, the formation of such a works committee will lead to an improvement.

Mr. W. THORNE: Will that investigation or inquiry refer to waiters and waitresses as well as other workers?

Mr. LUNN: I hope so.

Mr. HARVEY: Will the hon. Gentleman see that the matter is not left simply in the hope that something will result as the outcome of this committee; and will he insist that proper conditions are observed?

Mr. LUNN: This matter has been before my Department for quite a number of weeks. I have met the Trade Union Congress on two occasions, and the interview has been very pleasant, not only on their part but also on the part of the representatives of the exhibition and those employers who have up to now attended, so that I have hopes that by keeping in close contact with the matter we may be able to do something on the lines indicated in my reply.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Does a representative of Messrs. Lyons attend these conferences?

Mr. LUNN: He did not attend at the last meeting, but I am hopeful in that connection that we may be able to meet a representative of that particular firm.

NORTHERN RHODESIA (TRIBAL LANDS).

Lieut.-Colonel MEYLER: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the lands of the Barotse and other tribes of Northern Rhodesia have been surveyed and clearly delimited; and, if not, whether it is proposed to undertake such survey in the near future?

Mr. Thomas: I am aware, no such surveys have been carried out except in connection with the international boundary of the territory, and I doubt whether a general delimitation of tribal lands based on a survey is practicable or necessary. I will, however, ask the Governor for a report on the subject.

Earl WINTERTON: When my right hon. Friend addresses the Governor on the subject, will he take up the general question of the survey of Northern Rhodesia, which is in a most chaotic state? There has never been a proper survey made.

Mr. THOMAS: I am asking for a full report.

IRAQ TREATY.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give this House any information about the progress of the proceedings in the Constituent Assembly of Iraq for the ratification of the proposed treaty between His Majesty and His Majesty the King of Iraq?

Mr. THOMAS: As I informed the hon. and gallant Member on the 15th May, I am not in a position to make any statement at present.

GOLD COAST (MINING CASUALTIES).

Mr. J. HARRIS: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the death rate by sickness and accident, respectively, in the gold mines of the Gold Coast Colony for the last complete year?

Mr. THOMAS: The death rate from accident for the last complete year for which statistics are available, namely, 1921, was 1.39 per thousand labourers daily employed. It has not been the practice to furnish figures of the death rate from sickness. My predecessor, some time ago, directed that such statistics should be furnished, but I have not yet been able to obtain complete and accurate figures. The information which I have obtained, however, leads me to doubt whether the conditions of labour at the mines are satisfactory, and I propose to discuss the whole matter with the Governor at an early date.

WEST AFRICAN VEGETABLE OIL.

Mr. J. HARRIS: 37.
asked the secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the serious warning issued by the Governor of Nigeria as to the danger which confronts the West African vegetable oil industry by reason of the growing menace of Dutch competition; whether he is aware that this warning is similar in character to that made by the Governor of Sierra Leone; and whether, in any Committee that he proposes to set up to consider economic questions in the Dependencies, he will include this subject in the terms of reference?

Mr. THOMAS: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. The question of the best means of improving and increasing the production of palm oil has been considered by a Committee appointed by my predecessor. I am considering their Report.

Mr. J. HARRIS: Are not the difficulties with which the right hon. Gentleman is confronted due to the ill-fated attempt of his predecessors to impose Protection on the West African Colonies? Can we have an assurance that there will be no return to that policy?

Mr. THOMAS: I have no knowledge of any sins of my predecessors.

KING'S ROLL OF HONOUR.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if there are any firms doing contract work for the Crown Agents who have not fulfilled the conditions of membership of the King's Roll?

Mr. THOMAS: Generally speaking, the Crown Agents do not deal with firms not on the King's Roll, and no new firm which is not on the King's Roll is added to the list. The Crown Agents are, however, required by Colonial Governments from time to time to buy proprietary articles, spare parts and replacements, and other supplies of a special nature, and some exceptions to the general rule, which can only form a very small proportion of the whole, are inevitable.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the position with regard to municipalities and local councils in this country?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise from the original question.

MAJOR G. L. COMPTON-SMITH (MURDER).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the remains of the late Major Geoffrey Lee Compton-Smith, D.S.O., of the 2nd Battalion, Royal Welsh Fusiliers, who was murdered in Southern Ireland on or about the 30th April, 1921, have yet been recovered; and what compensation has been paid to his relatives?

Mr. THOMAS: As regards the first part of the question I have at present no information, but I am having inquiry made. In reply to the second part His Majesty's Government have paid the sum of £10,000 awarded by the Recorder of Cork as compensation to the widow and child, together with interest amounting to £385 and £68 costs and expenses.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUDGET.

SUGAR (BRITISH GUIANA).

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 41.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received from British Guiana any protests against the action and speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of the reduction of the amount of the sugar preference on Colonial-grown sugar; and, if so, what is the nature of such protest?

Mr. THOMAS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part, therefore, does not arise.

JAMAICA (PREFERENCE).

42. Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the elected members of the Legislative Council of Jamaica have decided to reduce the amount of preference given by Jamaica to imports, and especially on Lancashire cotton goods, from Great Britain on account of the reduction in the amount of preference on West Indian sugar proposed in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget statement; and whether it is his intention to require the Governor to use his reserve powers to compel Jamaica to continue preference to Great Britain at the current amounts?

Mr. THOMAS: I have seen a Press report to a similar effect, but no resolution of the Legislative Council has yet reached me.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

BUTTER AND BACON PRICES.

Mr. BECKER: 49.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the recent increased prices of butter and bacon charged by the retailer to the public, he will consider the advisability of obtaining powers to institute inquiries into the prices charged by the producer, the profit made by the middleman, and the profit made by the retailer, with a view to getting the cost of these essential commodities reduced to the public?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Buxton): The question of the disparity between the prices received by producers and those paid by consumers was very fully investigated last year by the Linlithgow Committee, whose final Report was recently issued. The Ministry maintains close touch with movements in the prices of agricultural produce.

Mr. BECKER: In view of the fact that the Linlithgow Committee's Report states, in effect, that the Minister is to keep a constant watch on prices and bring pressure on the retailer to give fair value to the consumer, and in view of the reductions of the price of tea and sugar as a result of the Budget, can the Minister explain how it is that prices of butter and bacon have gone up?

WAGES (WALES).

Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: 50.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that agricultural conditions in Wales differ so much from those prevailing in England, he will consider the desirability of establishing a separate wages board for Wales and Monmouthshire?

Mr. BUXTON: Under the proposals of the Agricultural Wages Bill the duty of fixing rates of wages will rest primarily with county committees, and this should be sufficient to ensure full consideration being given to differing agricultural conditions. I would add that this point was fully considered while the Bill was in course of preparation.

Mr. E. BROWN: Is it a fact that the Bill gives the district committees power to fix? Is it not rather a power to recommend?

Mr. BUXTON: "Recommend" is not a strong enough word.

Mr. E. DAVIES: 51.
asked the Minister of Agriculture in what counties in North Wales agricultural wages conciliation boards exist; and what is the labourer's wage agreed upon in each county in North Wales?

Mr. BUXTON: Four conciliation committees exist in North Wales. The Anglesey Committee has no agreement in operation at present, but I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of the current rates for adult male workers, which have been agreed by the other committees.

Following are the rates referred to:

Carnarvon Conciliation Committee.

Special class workers living out: 35s. for a week of 60 hours.

Special class workers boarded and lodged on farms: 33s. 6d. (including the value of board and lodging) for 60 hours.

Other workers: 30s. for 50 hours.

Denbigh and Flint Joint Conciliation Committee.

Stockmen and horsemen: 33s. for 61 hours.

Other workers: 27s. 1d. for 50 hours.

Merioneth and Montgomery Joint Conciliation Committee.

Stockmen: 32s. for a guaranteed week of 60 hours.

Other workers: 30s. for a guaranteed week of 54 hours.

The agreements also contain other provisions such as rates for younger workers and overtime rates, particulars of which I shall be glad to furnish to the hon. Member if desired.

WAGES (WILTSHIRE).

Mr. LAMBERT: 52.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the inspector sent to investigate agricultural wages in Wiltshire?

Mr. BUXTON: The inquiries made by the inspector in question were of a very
confidential nature in view of the risk to the persons concerned. I regret, therefore, that I am unable to comply with the right hon. Member's request.

Mr. LAMBERT: Is it not the duty of the Minister to lay on the Table of the House a Report from which an extract has been quoted in this House?

Mr. BUXTON: No, Sir; I do not think my right hon. Frend's contention is in accordance with previous rulings. I may say that in August, 1893, the Speaker ruled that confidential documents passing between the officers of a Department and the Department are not necessarily laid on the Table if the Minister declares them to be confidential, because there would be a precedent dangerous to the public service.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is there any information in that statement which shows there are agricultural labourers in Wiltshire receiving not more than £1 per week?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Are we to understand that this confidential report shows that the low scale of wages in Wiltshire, to which the Minister referred in this House, is general, or does it only refer to isolated cases?

Mr. BUXTON: Decidedly to isolated cases, as I was very careful to point out, and I also expressed the hope that they were very rare indeed.

Mr. PALMER: Is it on account of the low wages that this is to be regarded as confidential; is that the point which it is desired to suppress?

Mr. BUXTON: No, the reason is that to state the details of names and places might get people into trouble?

Mr. E. BROWN: Is the Minister aware that, according to a report, the same statement was made at a meeting of the North Wilts Farmers' Union.

Mr. BUXTON: Yes, Sir, I am aware of that fact.

TITHE ACT, 1920.

Mr. BLACK: 54.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he proposes to take to relieve the position of ratepayers in parishes where the additional rates, consequent upon the Tithe Act, 1920, are
a heavy burden upon them; and whether it is possible to give any relief before the date of the expiry of the Act?

Mr. BUXTON: Whilst sympathising with the position of ratepayers in certain parishes, I am advised that any measure to afford them relief would require legislation, which is impracticable this Session.

Mr. BLACK: Is the Minister preparing for the time when a Bill will be introduced in order that this imposition may be taken off the backs of these severely harassed ratepayers?

Mr. BUXTON: Yes, Sir, I am aware that the whole question of tithes must be thoroughly gone into.

Captain TUDOR REES: 59.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, seeing that the present difficulties of farmers are partly due to the fact that the whole of the burden of tithe is borne by them and that the distribution of that burden over the community generally, instead of being exclusively imposed upon one particular class, would materially assist agriculture, he will consider the desirability of setting up a committee to consider the question of the payment of tithe, now made in pursuance of a system established many centuries ago, and the more equitably to relate it to modern conditions?

Mr. BUXTON: Under the Tithe Act, 1891, the liability for tithe rentcharge is placed upon the owner of the land, and farmers pay tithe rentcharge only when they are the owners of their holdings. The suggestion that landowners should be relieved of their existing obligation to pay tithe rentcharge at the expense of the community generally is not one that I can see my way to adopt.

Captain REES: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it would be much more equitable to distribute the burden over the whole community rather than that one particular class should bear it?

Mr. BUXTON: As I have said, the whole question of tithe must be reviewed shortly.

Captain REES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when that consideration is going to take place? Is he going to set up a Committee?

Mr. BUXTON: I think that, according to the present Act, it must be reviewed next year.

Mr. LOVERSEED: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account also that, as stated when the last Bill was introduced, the cost would only amount to less than 1d. in the £ to the local ratepayers, whereas in Suffolk it amounts to 2s.?

Mr. BUXTON: I am sure that will be taken into account.

PHOSPHATES.

Mr. CLAYTON: 55.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, in view of the fact that there is no guarantee that, under Article 14 of the Nauru Island Agreement, the present allotment of 42 per cent. of the output of Nauru/Ocean Island phosphates will be available for the United Kingdom at any time in the near future, what provision is being made against emergencies and dependence upon foreign sources for supplies of this essential product?

Mr. BUXTON: The two main sources of supply of phosphate rock at present available in this country are North Africa, including Tunis, Algeria and Morocco, and the United States of America. I cannot imagine any "emergency" which might shut off supplies from North Africa or the United States of America which would not render it equally impossible for supplies to be obtained from Nauru.

POTATOES (PRICES).

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 56.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the present high price of potatoes; whether he is satisfied that the normal cultivation of this article is sufficient to meet popular requirements at popular prices; and, if not, whether he will stimulate cultivation in this direction?

Mr. BUXTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Given an average yield per acre, the area planted last year would have provided sufficient potatoes to feed the country and to keep prices fairly stable. But the yield per acre was poor with the result that supplies have become low and prices have risen to a high level.

Commander BELLAIRS: Is it the case that large areas of land have gone out of
cultivation as a result of the huge imports last year?

Mr. BUXTON: In 1923 the acreage under potatoes in Great Britain was 603,000 acres, and the yield per acre was 5.9 tons, or one-third of a ton below the average of the previous 10 years, but the acreage will show a good figure this year.

Mr. HOPE SIMPSON: Is it not a fact that the acreage fell by 100,000 acres between 1922 and 1923?

Mr. BUXTON: I think my hon. Friend is correct, but the figure will rise this year.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE RESTRICTIONS, WEST SUSSEX.

Lieut.-Colonel RUDKIN: 57.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware of the serious position that farmers in the West Sussex district are placed in owing to the continued restrictions regarding foot-and-mouth disease in that locality; that this county has been free from outbreaks for a considerable length of time; that at this season of the year it is important that farmers should be able to import and export cattle and sheep to consume the summer grass; that it is impossible for farmers to successfully conduct business without the opportunity of acquiring cattle outside their county; and that there is a strong feeling amongst farmers in the district in favour of a proper system of isolation and import and export under licence; and if he will take steps to remedy this evil without undue delay?

Mr. BUXTON: The restrictions referred to have been imposed by the local authority of the county for the protection of their flocks and herds, and so long as foot-and-mouth disease exists in other parts of the country I do not see my way to interfere with their discretionary powers to make such Regulations. The local authority should be in the best position to judge the needs of the farmers in West Sussex, and to determine whether any modification of their present restrictions is justifiable.

Lieut.-Colonel RUDKIN: Is the Minister aware that, as the summer is fast approaching, unless this matter is dealt with very soon, the opportunity which the farmers seek of feeding the new summer grass will be lost, and will he bear that fact in mind?

Mr. BUXTON: Yes, but I hope the majority of farmers of West Sussex are able to make their views felt at the county council.

Earl WINTERTON: Do I understand the Minister, in saying that he does not interfere with the discretion of local councils, to mean that he does not notify them from time to time of the views of his own expert advisers as to whether Regulations should be kept on or taken off; and has there been any communication with the local council on this matter in the last few months, at all events?

Mr. BUXTON: The officials keep in close touch with them, but I think it would be inadvisable to urge our views too strongly on local bodies.

Earl WINTERTON: Has the Minister given his views at all to the West Sussex County Council as to whether the Regulations are desirable or not?

Mr. BUXTON: It would be unwise, to do so in detail. In general we do express our views.

WATERCOURSES, STAFFORDSHIRE.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 58.
asked the Minister of Agriculture why he has disallowed a grant of £84 approved by the late Minister of Agriculture to the Staffordshire County Council in aid of the employment of unemployed persons by the county council on the cleansing of watercourses in the parishes of Teddesley, Hay, and Penkridge; and whether he received representations from the county council urging that the unemployed recently engaged on the similar schemes at Rodbaston and Gailey shall be employed forthwith on the Penkridge scheme?

Mr. BUXTON: The grant referred to was in respect of a drainage scheme which was approved on 16th January, 1924, and was calculated to take three to tour weeks. By 28th March the scheme had not started, because there were no unemployed in the area. The proposal referred to in the last part of the question was to start the scheme with men from other schemes who would not be available till 10th May, but I his could not be agreed to in view of the fact that all these schemes were due to stop on 12th May, a condition which had been accepted by the county council when applying for a grant.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Do we understand that all these grants are stopped now for the year?

Mr. BUXTON: Yes. The decision that the schemes should be for the winter only was made by the late Government.

AFFORESTATION, VYRNWY DISTRICT.

Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: 63.
asked the right hon. Member for Tiverton, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether he is aware that a number of tenant farmers are now under notice to quit, from the Liverpool Corporation, in the Vyrnwy district; that the corporation excuse their action by their alleged need of land for afforestation, whilst in fact some of the farms are outside their watershed; and that the corporation have on hand hundreds of acres remaining to be afforested; and whether, in view of the fact that the work is in part paid for out of public funds, he will take steps to stop the eviction of these farmers from their old homes?

Mr. ACLAND (for the Forestry Commissioners): The Forestry Commissioners are aware that, to avoid the risk of pollution of the water supply to the population of Liverpool, the corporation are taking ever for afforestation certain holdings in the Vyrnwy district. The corporation are at liberty to terminate tenancies without reference to the Commissioners. More men will be employed on the land during the planting and afterwards than are at present employed.

Mr. DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of these farms are outside the watershed altogether, and are being used as sheep farms?

Mr. ACLAND: The difficulty of the Commissioners is that the arrangement was made 10 years ago between the Treasury and the corporation, and the Forestry Commissioners are, as it were, legatees of that arrangement and are bound to carry out their share of it as long as the corporation carries out its share, I will represent to the corporation with great pleasure the point that the hon. Gentleman makes.

Sir C. YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the planting of the old disused pit mounds, instead of evicting farmers from their farms?

Mr. ACLAND: My hon. and gallant Friend can raise that question on the Forestry Commission Estimates.

COMMERCIAL RADIO INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE.

Mr. W. BAKER: 61.
asked the Postmaster-General what wireless licences have been granted by Great Britain to members of the international wireless combine known as the Commercial Radio International Committee?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hartshorn): No formal licence has been granted by Great Britain to any member of the Commercial Radio International Committee, but provisional permits have been given to the Marconi Company for communication with Austria, France, Spain, Switzerland, Canada and the United States.

Mr. BAKER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long these provisional licences will be in operation?

Mr. W. BAKER: 62.
asked the Postmaster-General what are the companies forming the international wireless combine known as the Commercial Radio International Committee, together with the number of companies in which each of the combine companies has an interest?

Mr. HARTSHORN: The companies forming the so-called Commercial Radio International Committee are the Marconi Company, the Radio Corporation of America, the Wireless Telegraph Company (Compagnie Générate de T.S.F.) of France and the Wireless Telegraph Company (Gesellschaft für Drahtlose Telegraphie) of Germany.
Precise information is not available as to the number of companies in which each of the combine companies has an interest, but it is understood that the numbers are roughly as follow:—


The Marconi Company
about 20


The Radio Corporation
about 9


The French Company
about 12


The German Company
about 15

Mr. BAKER: Having regard to the immense importance of the possession of exact information on this subject, will the right hon. Gentleman obtain full information in regard to these interests?

Sir F. WISE: Has not the Marconi Company an interest in the Radio Company?

Mr. HARTSHORN: Yes: I have said so. I will endeavour to get more complete information.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (BENEFITS).

Mr. WALLHEAD: 64.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the increasing number of persons being admitted into Poor Law guardians' institutions who are entitled to receive benefits under the National Health Insurance Acts; and whether he is prepared to propose an Amendment to the Acts authorising the boards of guardians to claim an equitable amount of benefits in order that the money can be appropriated towards the cost of the patient's maintenance?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. A. Greenwood): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which was given on 6th May to a similar question by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Robinson).

TRADE BOARDS ACTS (DRAPERY TRADE).

Lord HENRY CAVENDISH - BENTINCK: 65.
asked the Minister of Labour what progress he has made in negotiations with representatives of employers in the drapery trade with a view to bringing that trade under the Trade Boards Acts?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): My right hon. Friend has been in consultation with representatives of employers in the drapery and allied trades since 13th March last. In accordance with the Trade Boards Acts, when he is satisfied that a prima facie case for inquiry into a trade has been made out, his object is to ascertain the facts as to existing organisation and wages. I regret that up to the present time the organised employers in the drapery and allied trades have not yet seen their way to co-operate with us in ascertaining these facts. My right hon. Friend still hopes to obtain this co-operation, but he proposes, without delay, to proceed with the necessary investigation.

ARMY ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT, WOOLWICH (DISCHARGES).

Sir K. WOOD: 70.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether steps are still being taken to reduce the establishment at the Army Ordnance Department, Woolwich; whether further discharges are about to take place; and what, action he is taking to secure employment for the men who may be discharged?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Lawson): I regret that further discharges are still necessarily taking place. As to the latter part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given him by my right hon. Friend on the 6th instant.

Sir K. WOOD: Inasmuch as the Secretary of State for War has already dismissed some hundreds of men at the Arsenal since he took office, cannot, the hon. Gentleman give some undertaking to provide employment for them?

Mr. BECKER: Could the hon. Gentleman find employment for these men in the motor ear industry?

Mr. LAWSON: Of course, these men are never dismissed without very serious consideration being given to the matter, and none are ever dismissed without very great regret on the part of the Department, but if there is no work for them to do, we cannot keep them in employment, and if we did, I am sure the hon. Gentleman would be our keenest critic.

Sir K. WOOD: But regret will not keep these men. What is the hon. Gentleman going to do about it?

COAL ROYALTIES.

Mr. BLACK: 71.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total number of owners of coal royalties in Great Britain, and the total amount received by such owners of royalties for the years 1922–23 and 1923–24 before deduction of Income Tax?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Mines to a question by the hon. Member
for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. D. G. Somerville) on the 25th March last, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. HOPE: Can the hon. Gentleman say what this charge on the average works out at per ton of coal raised?

Mr. GRAHAM: I could not answer that question offhand, but I think I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is indicated in one or other of the Reports.

Mr. BLACK: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will consider the question of nationalising these royalties, in order that the interests of the public and of the industry should be safeguarded?

Sir VICTOR WARRENDER: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the amount paid in Income Tax and Super-tax by royalty owners?

Mr. GRAHAM: Obviously, I could not reply to a question of that kind without notice.

MAIN ROADS (SIGNPOSTS IN TOWNS).

Lieut. - Colonel HOWARD - BURY: 73.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the great difficulty that motorists have of finding their way through the larger towns in this country owing to the lack of signposts; and whether his Department will take up this question and have proper signboards placed along the main roads through the principal towns of this country?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Gosling): I am anxious to encourage the provision of signposts and of other suitable directions to traffic, and my Department has given and will continue to give financial assistance to highway authorities for that purpose. Considerable progress has already been made.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Cannot the hon. Gentleman issue a circular letter to all highway authorities instructing them to do their best in putting signposts through the big towns, where it is extremely difficult to find one's way now?

Mr. GOSLING: I will see if anything more can be done.

OXFORD ELECTION PETITION.

REPORT OF JUDGES.

Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that he had received the following Certificate and Report from the Judges appointed to try the Election Petition relating to the Election for the Borough of Oxford:

In the High Courts of Justice.

King's Bench Division.

The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883, and the Representation of the People Acts, 1918 to 1922.

In the matter of the Election Petition for the Borough of Oxford.

Between:

Hugh Hall and James

Herbert Morrell … Petitioners

and

Frank Gray … … Respondent.

To the Right Honourable

THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS,

We, Sir John Sankey, Knight, G.B.E., and Sir Rigby Philip Watson Swift, Knight, Judges of the High Court of Justice and two of the judges on the rota for the time being for the trial of election petitions in England and Wales, do hereby certify in pursuance of the said Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, and the Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Act, 1879, that upon the 7th, 8th, 9th, 12th, 13th, and 14th days of May, 1924, we duly held a court at the county hall in the borough of Oxford for the trial of, and did try, the Election Petition for the borough of Oxford wherein Hugh Hall and James Herbert Morrell were the Petitioners and Frank Gray was the Respondent.

And in further pursuance of the said Acts we certify that at the conclusion of the said trial we determined that the said Frank Gray was not duly elected and returned and that his election was void.

And whereas charges were made in the said petition of corrupt and illegal practices having been committed at the
said election, we, in further pursuance of the said Acts report:

I. As TO CORRUPT PRACTICES.

1. That no corrupt practice was committed by or with the knowledge or consent of the Respondent at the said election.
2. That the said Respondent was guilty by his election agent of the corrupt practice of having knowingly made the declaration respecting election expenses required by Section 33 of The Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883, falsely.
3. That James Charles Johnstone, the Respondent's election agent, was proved to have been guilty of the corrupt practice of having as election agent for the Respondent knowingly made the declaration respecting election expenses required by Section 33 of The Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883, falsely.

II. As TO ILLEGAL PRACTICES.

1. That the said Respondent was guilty of the following illegal practices:

(a) Incurring expenses in excess of the maximum allowed by Law in contravention of Section 8 of The Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883;
(b) Knowingly providing money for payments in contravention of Section 13 of the said Act;
(c) Making payments in respect of the conduct or management of the said election otherwise than by or through his election agent in contravention of Section 28 of the said Act.

2. That the said James Charles Johnstone was guilty of the following illegal practices:—

(a) Incurring expenses in excess of the maximum allowed by Law in contravention of Section 8 of the said Act;
(b) Knowingly providing money for payments in contravention of Section 13 of the said Act;
(c) Satisfying claims barred by Section 29 of the said Act;
(d) Failing to transmit a true return respecting his expenses at the said election in contravention of Section 33 of the said Act.

1839
3. That Eveline Reine Gray, the wife of the Respondent, Percy Linaker, and Joseph Colegrove wore each of them guilty of the following illegal practices:

(a) Knowingly providing money for illegal payments in contravention of Section 13 of the said Act;
(b) Making payments in respect of the conduct or management of the said election, otherwise than by or through the Respondent's election agent in contravention of Section 28 of the said Act.

4. That there is no reason to believe that corrupt or illegal practices have extensively prevailed at the said election.
5. That certificates of indemnity have been furnished to the persons found guilty of the above-mentioned corrupt and illegal practices in pursuance of Section 59 of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883.

A copy of the evidence and of our judgment, taken by the deputies of the Shorthand Writer of the House of Commons, accompanies this our certificate.

JOHN SANKEY.

RIGBY SWIFT.

Dated this 14th day of May, 1924.

Ordered, "That the said Certificate and Report be entered in the Journals of this House."

Copy of the Shorthand Writer's Notes laid upon the Table by Mr. SPEAKER.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEES).

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Sir Philip Pilditch.

STANDING COMMITTEE D.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee D: Sir William Davison.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (SUPERANNUATION) [PAYMENTS].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71 A.

[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session, to amend the Education (Scotland) (Superannuation) Act, 1922, to authorise the payment, into the Education (Scotland) Fund, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of such sums as may become payable thereinto in respect of the amount collected and recovered in the years commencing the 1st day of April, 1924, and the 1st day of April, 1925, by the Scottish Education Department under Section one of the Education (Scotland) (Superannuation) Act, 1922, as amended by the said Act of the present Session"—(King's Recommendation Signified.)

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. W. Adamson): I have issued a memorandum explaining fully the need for this Resolution. As the Committee are aware, the pensions and allowances of Scottish teachers are met, not by the Exchequer directly. They are paid out of the Education (Scotland) Fund. Under the terms of Section 6 of the Education (Scotland) (Superannuation) Act, 1919, there is annually paid into this Fund, as the Exchequer contribution towards the Superannuation of Scottish teachers, a sum equal to 11/80ths of the corresponding expenditure in England. The obvious intention of Parliament was that Scotland should receive actually 11/80ths of the corresponding figure in England. It is fairly certain that during the next two years the produce of the 5 per cent. levy on the salaries of Scottish teachers will amount to more than 11/80ths of the corresponding sum which is raised in England. As the moneys so obtained are to be used in Appropriations-in-Aid, or, in other words, to reduce the gross total of the Votes, the effect would be, that unless some adjustment were made, the net amount that Scotland would receive would fall short of the 11/80ths which was guaranteed her by the Act of 1919. It is true that the sum would not be largo, but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor
of the Exchequer has agreed that, however small it may be, it ought to be made good. Accordingly, the Bill provides that the Fund will receive compensation from the Exchequer for any adverse balance. That is the object with which this Financial Resolution has been introduced, and I hope that it will receive the consent of the Committee.

Sir HENRY CRAIK: I have no desire to occupy the time of the Committee very long commenting upon the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. He has explained the precise financial effect of this proposal during the present year, and I should like to congratulate him on having got out of the Chancellor of the Exchequer this sum of money which will rectify what would have been an injustice. The right hon. Gentleman knows, of course, that this Resolution is open to the very strong objection which we raised on the introduction of the Bill, in that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take the contributions of the teachers of Scotland and use them, not to establish, fortify, or to buttress a permanent fund for paying pensions, but to allow the money to go into the General Education (Scotland) Fund; thus, instead of it being used for the purpose for which it is nominally to be used, it is merely swamped in the ordinary expenditure for education: to that extent it relieves the taxes. I am quite certain the right hon. Gentleman recognises the effects of this system. He knows that it is unjust and unfair to the teachers of Scotland that this contribution, which ought to be building up their pension fund, is instead being used in connection with the present rotten and unsound system. What we want is to establish a permanent and sound system of pensions on the lines of the scheme laid down in the Emmott Committee's Report. The right hon. Gentleman proposes to continue this for the present, for he considers that this year he could not carry a Bill to put the matter on a sound basis. I trust he will agree with me that the shorter time the present system exists the better; we trust that he will try to sweep it away as quickly as he can. I think in Committee we shall try to cut the period down to one year instead of two. Although this Resolution embodies the evil effects which he pointed out on the First Reading of the Bill, I do not propose to object to the passing of the Resolution as it stands, and I con-
gratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon having got very favourable terms from the Treasury.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I beg to move, in line 5, to leave out the word "years."
I desire subsequently to follow this proposed Amendment up by leaving out the words
and the 1st day of April, 1925.
The effect, of these two Amendments would be to limit the Resolution to a period of one year. If the Amendments are carried it would make it necessary for the Government, in Committee, to amend their Bill, so that only one year would be allowed to them in which to bring forward their new scheme of superannuation. I do not want to go over again the ground which was so well covered in the Debate when the Bill was introduced, but I wish to impress this point upon the Secretary for Scotland. There is a feeling that it is not necessary to hang up the final scheme for a couple of years. I am bound to say in the speech which the right hon. Gentleman made on the Motion for leave to introduce the Bill he did not advance a single reason why two years should be required for the purpose. He spoke about keeping in step with the English Regulations, but he did not give us any valid reason why all that was needful could not be done in the course of one year. I am moving this Amendment in the hope that it may persuade the right, hon. Gentleman to give a definite, undertaking that in Committee he will reduce the period of two years to one year. The danger of passing this Resolution as it is is that in the Committee the Government will have an additional argument for making two years the period, for they will say that the House considered the matter and deliberately passed a Resolution giving the two years, and that that, therefore, was an argument in favour of the longer period. I want to deprive the right hon. Gentleman of any such argument. I want to show him that, so far as Scottish opinion is concerned, there is complete unanimity on this point. I want to ask one or two definite questions. It is a regular weapon of Parliamentary defence to defer everything till we arrive at the Committee stage, and he has done it. I want to ask
him that when this matter comes before the Committee—of course, the Scottish Committee—will he leave it to the free vote of the Committee? The second question I put is: supposing the Scottish Committee do decide to curtail the period, making it one instead of two years, will the right hon. Gentleman be satisfied with that decision, or will he, when the Bill comes up on Report, put on all the powerful machinery of the Government and seek the assistance of the English and the Welsh Members to over-ride the definite decision of the Scottish Committee? If the right hon. Gentleman can answer those questions satisfactorily I shall be very pleased to withdraw my Amendment in order to put the Committee to as little trouble as possible.

Mr. D. M. COWAN: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik) and with the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Leith (Captain Benn). I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this proposed scheme of superannuation is to be placed in an altogether unsound financial position, and I also agree with my hon. and gallant Friend below me that one year ought to be quite sufficient to endeavour to carry into effect a satisfactory scheme. This Resolution deals with two years, beginning with the 1st of June, 1024. The Act of 1922 has already been two years in operation. I understand that during those two years the Scottish contributions have very considerably exceeded the 11/80ths. I should like the Secretary for Scotland to take particular note of this point. In introducing the Bill, he said that "being Scotsmen we will be sure to look after the financial side of the matter." As I have said, the 1922 Act has already been in operation two years. I understand a surplus has accrued which ought to be paid to Scotland, such as the surplus under this Bill is proposed to be paid to Scotland. I therefore would like the Secretary for Scotland to tell us whether that accrued surplus of the two years, 1922–24, has already been paid into the Scottish Educational Fund, or whether it is proposed that it shall be so paid? If not, why not?

4.0 P.M.

Mr. ADAMSON: I shall try to deal as satisfactorily as possible with the questions that have been put to me. The
right hon. Baronet the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik) began by complimenting me on having got a little extra money for the Scottish teacher. Then he went on to point out that the money would be going into the Education (Scotland) Fund, and in this way was not being used for what it was originally intended. He hoped that I would make the time as short as possible. I think my right hon. Friend will agree, when I remind him, that I made my position very clear on that point.

Sir H. CRAIK: The right hon. Gentleman made his own opinion quite clear, but he did not bind his Government. He showed what his own wishes were, but I do not think that he committed his Government.

Captain BENN: The right hon. Gentleman was extremely genial, but he was not clear. He can be clear by answering the questions which I put to him categorically. Then I shall be quite satisfied.

Mr. ADAMSON: I was pointing out that on the particular point with which I am dealing I made my position very clear. As a matter of fact, I practically used the words of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain Benn). I made it perfectly clear that in Scotland the feeling was unanimously in favour of this being made a permanent instead of a temporary arrangement as provided in the present Bill.

Sir H. CRAIK: As soon as possible.

Mr. ADAMSON: All that I was going to add was to assure my right hon. Friend that I would make the time of the temporary arrangement as short as possible. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith has moved an Amendment for the purpose of putting some questions, one of which was whether I would be in favour of leaving this matter, reducing the period from two years to one year, to a free and open vote of the Committee without the Welsh and English Members.

Captain BENN: No.

Mr. ADAMSON: I thought my hon. and gallant Friend said without bringing in the English and Welsh Members.

Captain BENN: That is in the House.

Mr. ADAMSON: He said that he moved the Amendment because there was a unanimous feeling in Scotland in favour of reducing the period to one year. I have already stated that I believed there was such a unanimous feeling. I had an opportunity of meeting the teachers' representatives and of discussing the matter with them, and I know that they are anxious for this Bill to be made permanent as early as possible.

Sir H. CRAIK: Not this Bill, but the scheme.

Mr. ADAMSON: Well, to bring in a Bill to make the scheme permanent instead of temporary. I took that opportunity of doing more. I discussed with them some of the difficulties that stood in the way, and I want to say, quite frankly, that I am not at all sure that if the teachers, whose interests are involved, were sitting in the places that the hon. and gallant Member for Leith and I occupy, they would not recognise more clearly than he does the difficulties which stand in the way of limiting this to one year while the corresponding Measure for England is for two years.

Captain BENN: Is the right bon. Gentleman now saying that the English Bill necessitates a Bill of two years for Scotland before a scheme is put forward?

Mr. ADAMSON: No, it is not absolutely necessary that the Scottish Bill should be for more than one year, but I would point out that, if you had a Scottish Bill operating for only one year, whereas the English Bill is for two years, you might at the end of one year require to bring in another temporary Measure for another year in order to bring you in line with England, and, as I pointed out on the First Heading, unless the two schemes run together it will place the teachers, not only in Scotland but also in England, under disabilities. I therefore think that my hon. and gallant Friend would be well advised not to press his Amendment, but to leave the matter to be fully discussed in the Committee.

Captain BENN: Will you abide by the decision of the Scottish Committee?

Mr. ADAMSON: I think my hon. and gallant Friend had better not press me further. My hon. Friend the Member for
the Scottish Universities (Mr. Cowan) pointed out that this temporary arrangement had already been in operation for two years, and that as a result the Scottish teachers had suffered certain financial disabilities, in that they had not secured the amount of money to which they were entitled. He asked whether it was true that there was a balance somewhere from which the shortage of those two years might be made up. All I can say is if he will put me on the track of any additional money I will take immediate steps to see if I can get it.

Mr. COWAN: The right hon. Gentleman ought to know that the Act of 1922 has been running for two years, and I believe it is a fact that there is an actual surplus. I want him to get hold of that actual surplus.

Mr. ADAMSON: The fact that I have introduced Clause 2 into this temporary Bill will show my hon. Friend that I saw there was a disability. I hope my hon. Friends representing Scotland in all parts of the House will now permit me to get the Financial Resolution.

Mr. F. C. THOMSON: I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to be grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir. H. Craik) and to the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) for raising this question, because I feel sure that they will have strengthened his hands in dealing with the matter in the way in which I am sure he agrees that it ought to be dealt with, namely, that this Bill should be made to operate for only one year and that we should get a permanent settlement next year. I feel that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, looking at it from the point of view of national finance, must be willing to lend his assistance to my right hon. Friend, not only as a Scotsman, but as a high official at the Treasury, to get a permanent settlement at as early a date as possible. I feel sure that the Treasury must wish to have this matter settled on a permanent footing. Therefore, I think we are really fighting his battle in supporting strongly the view that this Bill should be for only one year, and that the Amendment should be carried. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is highly desirable that England and Scotland should proceed together, but that is all the more reason
why, having a well-founded case, he should press on his colleague, the President of the Board of Education for England, the necessity for early action. His case is a perfectly sound and strong one, and he should press on his English colleague for an early settlement. It seems to me that there is nothing to be said for hanging the matter up for more than a year and that we ought to get a permanent settlement next spring. No doubt there is a good deal in the point that the two countries should move together, because different regulations with regard to superannuation on the one side of the border and on the other are a serious drawback, as the teachers find at the present time, and I do not know that it will be to their advantage to have a permanent settlement in England before there is one in Scotland. There ought to be a permanent settlement for both countries next year.

Captain BENN: I do not desire at this stage to put the Committee to unnecessary trouble, and I have yet some hopes of my right hon. Friend. I think, when it comes, to the Committee, a decision will be arrived at in one sense, and I only hope my right hon. Friend will see his way to accede to the demand unanimously made from Scotland. But it would be premature to divide now, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

PENSIONS INCREASE [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order 71A.

[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): I beg to move,
That it is expedient to make provision for raising, as from the first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, the percentages by which pensions not exceeding one hundred pounds a year to which the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920, applies, may be increased, and to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, in the case of such of the pensions to which that Act applies as are payable out of moneys provided by Parliament, of such sums as may be required in consequence of such
percentages being so raised, so, however, that the percentages shall not be raised above the following limits:

(a) In the case of an existing pension not exceeding twenty-five pounds a year, above seventy per cent.;
(b) In the case of an existing pension exceeding twenty-five pounds a year but not exceeding fifty pounds a year, above sixty-five per cent.;
(c) In the case of an existing pension exceeding fifty pounds a year but not exceeding one hundred pounds a year, above fifty per cent."—[King's Recommendation signified.]

Hon. Members in all parts of the Committee are familiar with the legislation that was passed in August, 1920, in order to increase the rates of certain pre-War pensions having regard to the increase which had taken place in the cost of living up to that time. The proposal before the Committee this afternoon is one which is designed simply and solely to increase the percentages in response to many requests which have been made, and which are in keeping with the unanimous Resolution of this House passed in May, 1923. At this stage all I propose to do is to give as clearly as possible a summary of the legislation of 1920, and what the effect of our proposals will be. Any objections which hon. Members may raise can be replied to later, having regard to the fact that we are in Committee. The Committee will recall the character of the legislation of 1920. It provides as regards pre-War pensions not exceeding £50 a year for an increase not exceeding 50 per cent.; for pensions between £50 and £100 in the case of unmarried persons and for pensions between £50 and £130 a year for married people, not exceeding 40 per cent. Between £100 and £150 in the case of unmarried persons, and between £130 and £200 in the case of married persons an increase was provided not exceeding 50 per cent. Briefly those were the increases provided by the Act of 1920, but, as the Committee knows, that Act contained a number of limitations and restrictions which have been the subject of criticism since.
First of all, that Act laid down that the pensioner must reside within the British Isles. Secondly, it imposed age limits, and it also laid down certain restrictions as regards income limits of £150 from all sources in the case of single people, and
£200 per annum in the case of married people. Those were the broad limitations and restrictions of the Act of 1920, and when that Act was passed, the Government of the day made it perfectly clear that their immediate object was to try and confer some benefit on the poorer classes of pensioners who were severely penalised on account of the increase in the cost of living, and they desired to give this assistance not, of course, to all pensioners as a whole.
When we came to consider the problem, we found that certain investigations had been carried out by our predecessors in office, but on account of the General Election and for other reasons the introduction of legislation was delayed. There is not the least doubt, however, that there was a kind of agreement to grant the percentage increases from the 1st July last, and we are proposing to give effect to that in the Resolution which we have placed on the Paper to-day. May I, at this stage, indicate, roughly, the broad fundamental point on which the Government had to make up their minds. They had to decide, in the congested state of Parliamentary business, whether they would confine themselves in this Bill to a mere increase, that is an immediate increase with retrospective effect to the 1st July, 1923, of the percentages in force, or go beyond that and try to introduce legislation which would either modify or remove the restrictive conditions in the Act of 1920. We have not forgotten the Motion which was moved in this House on the 16th May, 1923, by my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. J. Robertson). It is a fact that that Resolution went beyond the mere percentages increase, and pleaded also for the removal of the restrictions to which I have, referred. The Government, however, came to the conclusion that if an attempt were made to try even to modify the restrictions apart altogether from trying to remove them, we should be involved in legislation which would necessarily call for much discussion in this House, and would lead at the same time to certain administrative and other difficulties, and would, I am afraid, involve considerable cost or outlay which the Government is hardly prepared to shoulder at the present time.
A little later in the few words which I propose to address to the Committee I
shall try to outline what that cost would be. At the moment, as the Resolution indicates, let me make it plain that for all practical purposes the Resolution is the Bill which will follow. We propose to introduce a distinction in the pensions up to £50 per annum, and to provide that in the pensions up to £25 there will be a total increase not exceeding 70 per cent.; in the case of pensions between £25 and £50 a total increase not exceeding 65 per cent.; and in the case of pensions between £50 and £100 a total increase not exceeding 50 per cent., which, as hon. Members will realise, marks, I think, not an inconsiderable change in the range of pensions up to £100 per annum but leaves the existence allowance of 50 per cent. on pensions above that sum untouched. Above that figure the legislation of 1920 stands. Those are the proposals on their financial side as briefly and plainly as I can possibly put them
I now come to the cost of the scheme. Under the Act of 1920 approximately 100,000 people, or rather less, are affected, and the cost so far has been about £1,000,000 a year, in the terms of the proposals which we are now submitting to the Committee the extra charge will be about £300,000 per annum, so that exactly what is involved by this proposal will be plain to hon. Members. But I have to add that, having regard to the fact that we are giving retrospective effect to this proposal to July, 1923, that will involve an additional amount within the present year of £225,000. Consequently, the Government have given, for the purposes of this immediate increase and the retrospective effect of it, a sum of £525,000 within this financial year. In round figures that is a little more than half a million of an additional amount.
Now I come to examine some of the criticisms which have been offered, not only during the Debate which took place on the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell, but also by different organisations and bodies and by many hon. Members since. In the first place, it may be asked to-day, "Why do you propose to continue the restrictions as regards residence within the British Isles?" If we had been able to modify or remove certain of those restrictions, we should have been only too glad to do so, but the Government felt that those restrictions and modifications
must stand together and form the subject of separate legislation. In any case, the immediate cost would be considerable, and we have, of course, to keep in view the additionsl outlay that would have been involved if the wishes of hon. Members had been carried out.

Sir LANE MITCHELL: What would the additional cost have been for this item?

Mr. GRAHAM: The additional cost in respect of this item would have been rather more than £60,000, but that would have only been one item. I put that down as one of the difficulties which we have to keep in mind, but that there are other difficulties which hon. Members have referred to.

Major-General Sir J. DAVIDSON: You have not dealt with the means limit.

Mr. GRAHAM: That was dealt with under the legislation of 1920, and hon. Members are aware that a good deal of pressure has been brought to bear to modify it or sweep it away altogether. Let me make it plain what the modification of this means limit would involve. If it were modified as regards pensions of £150 single and £200 married, I am advised the cost per annum would be about £552,000, which would mean over another half a million. Of course if the limits as to total means were abolished altogether and simply swept away root and branch the cost to the State would run into several millions. I quite agree with hon. Members in not seeking to penalise thrift in any shape or form, but I would remind the House that having regard to the fact that we have provided rather more than half a million, we thought it best to take the first step by increasing the percentages, and the other changes must form the subject of separate legislation if at any time the Government find themselves able to embark upon that course.

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: Could the hon. Gentleman say what is the average age of these poor people who are to wait for this future legislation?

Mr. GRAHAM: I could not say off-hand what is their average age, but the retiring ages are well known to my hon. and gallant Friend, and he will keep in mind the exceptions, in the case of the police and others, in which the retiring age is
very often low. These are the main outlines of the proposal. There are certain other difficulties which have been raised in the House from time to time regarding the position of pensioners in Ireland, but on that I think I can best state the position by telling the Committee that all classes of pensioners in Ireland are included for whom we are responsible, and that certainly includes the Royal Irish Constabulary, whose case is the one that has been mainly raised by hon. Members in past Debates.

Sir JAMES REMNANT: And the Dublin Metropolitan Police?

Mr. GRAHAM: No, Sir. It is perfectly clear that the Dublin Metropolitan Police were transferred completely under the recent legislation, and the Government of this country is not, constitutionally or otherwise, responsible for them, so that I think that any legislation of this kind could not be applied to them. I have taken advice upon that point, and there does, not seem to mo to be the slightest doubt about it. I think I have said enough, in this brief summary, to indicate the scope of the proposals. I can readily believe that hon. Members will press for a removal of part of the restrictions, but let me say to them again that the Government have had to decide between doing something at once, in the present state of Parliamentary business, and, possibly, having the matter delayed, and the cost very greatly increased, if a more ambitious scheme were attempted On these grounds, having regard to all the facts and keeping in mind the consideration that the door is not necessarily closed as regards the future, I ask the Committee to pass this Resolution.

Sir J. REMNANT: May I say at the outset how deeply disappointed I am at the niggardly way in which the Government is attempting to deal with this very pressing and urgent question? Three hundred thousand pounds is the limit which they set to their benevolence to these old people, who have been admitted on all sides to be deserving of the utmost sympathy from the Government. It will take a good deal to make these poor old souls believe that this is the utmost that the Labour Government can do for them. I do not wish to go into controversial matters, but only a few days back the Government were willing to forgo many
millions to satisfy some feeling of their own, and now, when it comes to dealing with these old pre-War pensioners of the Navy, the Army, the Police and the Civil Service, all that they can find is a paltry sum of £300,000. We must, of course, take it; we shall not be able to vote against it; but there are one or two points in connection with it that I should like the Committee to bear in mind. The hon. Gentleman, in his very clear statement, referred to the Resolution introduced in the House by the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Robertson) on the 16th May, 1923. He introduced it in a way which carried with it the unanimous support of the House. It is not quite as the Parliamentary Secretary has stated. He has only told half the story. In addition to what the hon. Gentleman said, the Resolution went on to say that it was brought forward in order
to amend other provisions of a limiting and restrictive character which have disqualified many deserving pensioners from receiving benefit under the Act."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th May, 1923; cols. 553 and 554, Vol. 164.]

Mr. GRAHAM: The hon. Baronet will forgive me for interrupting him, but I expressly brought that out in my speech

Sir J. REMNANT: Not as regards that statement.

Mr. GRAHAM: Oh, yes.

Sir J. REMNANT: The last thing in the world that I should wish to do would be to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman, but I did not understand that to be included in his statement. That was part of the Resolution which was carried unanimously by the House, and for the Government to pretend that they have not the authority of the House to bring forward now a Money Resolution providing for doing away with these limitations, is, to my mind, not worthy of them. They have had full authority from the whole House to get rid of these restrictive limitations, so as not to put a penalty on thrift, nor to put any prohibition upon any of these pensioners if they like to go and live in any of the British Dominions; and I do hope that the hon. Gentleman, before the Bill is introduced, will think better of it, and allow these restrictions to be removed. I imagine that I should be out of order if I attempted now to move an increase in the sum proposed by the Gov-
ernment, because, from what the hon. Gentleman has said, he has not provided for the question of doing away with these restrictive limitations. There is no provision for that in the sum of £300,000.
May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he has made any provision to make the conditions compulsory, and not discretionary, as they are at the present moment? Surely he is not going to allow some authorities to use a discretion absolutely to deny any increase, as is done in some cases in regard to old age pre-War pensioners. There are some authorities to-day that have definitely refused to grant any increase whatsoever, and a great number have never given the full increase allowed under the Act, while a great many others are agitating to reduce the increases which they have already given. Surely, the hon. Gentleman is not going to ask the House to pass any more of these discretionary provisions in the new Measure. If so, it will create a great hardship on these pre-War pensioners, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind, and will not allow those authorities which are trying to hurt these poor old people to have their way and refuse to give them the increase in their pensions which everyone is anxious that they should have.
May I ask whether, if no provision is made now to meet the ease of the removal of these limitations, and to make the new Act mandatory instead of discretionary, we shall be allowed, when the Bill is before the House, to move Amendments to provide for the inclusion of such provisions? I am rather afraid that they will be out of order, so that the Government, by restricting the amount now to the paltry sum of £300,000, is definitely stopping the House from expressing an opinion upon this urgent public question. That is not treating the House fairly, nor is it, if I may say so, treating the Government party fairly either, because the Prime Minister himself, during the Election and quite recently, has definitely stated in so many words that it was his intention to deal with this question and to give these people the very maximum that it was in his power to give. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer also has said the same. While I am not in any way going to vote against the provision
of any sum, however small it may be, I do ask the hon. Gentleman to do his best to meet these questions, knowing perfectly well that, in making provision for them, he will have practically the unanimous support of the House. I was going into one or two other questions, which, perhaps, however, had better be left till we reach the Committee stage of the Bill, but when the hon. Gentleman talks about making provision for the poorer pensioners, is he really doing so under this proposal? Does he realise that the returns furnished to the House not so many years ago show that a large number of pre-War pensioners are drawing not more than 10s. a week? How, in Heaven's name, can they keep going, even with this small increase? The whole question is a very big one, and I venture to say that if it is met in a broad spirit, it will go a long way towards meeting the difficulty. If it is approached in that spirit by the hon. Gentleman, I believe I shall not be wrong in saying that he will carry with him the whole House in his endeavours to remedy this state of affairs.

Sir LAMING WORTHINGTON - EVANS: This Bill seems to me to be a mean Bill. It is really an act of cowardice on the part of the Government to produce this Measure and to suggest that it is what the House asked them to do when it passed a Resolution in 1923; and to say that it is produced in this form in order to save Parliamentary time, and that at some later time the old people who are shut out of this Bill are to have their cases considered, is really a mockery. A great many of them are over 70–75 or 80, and I even remember one case in which the pensioner's age is 82; and to say that in a few years' time their case is to be considered is to mock at them.

Mr. SULLIVAN: Why did not your Government do it?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: If we had remained in power, a Bill on broader lines than this would already have been part of the law of the land. Even assuming that we were wrong, does that make this Government right? As I have said, however, if we had been in power, a Bill on broader lines would long ere this have been brought in. The Parliamentary Secretary says that to remove the residence limit would cost £60,000 a
year. Surely, that is not outside his financial power. This will necessitate a Supplementary Estimate as it is, for, as far as I know, none of this £300,000 or £500,000, has been provided for in the Budget. The hon. Gentleman is bound to come forward with a Supplementary Estimate, and, surely, it is not asking too much that it should include the £60,000 required to remove what has turned out to be a great injustice and detriment to the pensioners, who, after all, are entitled, just as much as anyone else, to go with their children to the Dominions if they think they are going to get a better life for the children in those Dominions. They can only do so now at the cost of not receiving any increase on their pre-War pensions. I am quite certain that if we had been in power that limitation would have been struck out.
There is another question which I think is extremely important. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn (Sir J. Remnant) referred to it when he said that this will not make any of the schemes mandatory. This new Bill will not force the local authorities, who have refused to take advantage of the 1920 Act to come in now and take advantage of it. When the 1920 Bill was before the House of Commons—I myself introduced it—I remember very well what happened. We were advised by the then Law Officers that the word "may" in Section 3 meant "shall." All Parliamentarians know the snag as to the word "may" meaning "shall." It has turned out in practice that, although "may" means "shall" in some cases, the "may" used in that particular Section does not mean "shall," but still means "may." Unless, therefore, a local authority chooses to bring in a scheme, and the Treasury approves it, the pensioner does not get any increase at all. Speaking from memory, I think it would cost about £14,000, or some very small sum, a year, to turn that "may" into "shall," as the House of Commons intended it to be originally in 1920. The House never intended that a local authority, having been given power by the House to increase the pensions, should shirk its duty and refuse altogether to increase them.
What the House intended, and what the House was told would happen, was that
local authorities would be called upon to produce schemes, which, subject to Treasury sanction, would come into force. The great bulk of the local authorities have done so; there are only, if I remember rightly, 20 or 30 local authorities who have not taken advantage of the Act, and there are fewer still who have refused to produce any scheme. As this would cost such a very few thousands a year, I do urge the Government at least to make this Resolution wide enough to allow of an Amendment to the Bill in that respect. As my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn has said, and as, indeed, the Parliamentary Secretary warned us, this Resolution is, in effect, the Bill itself. The Bill will be in the form of this Resolution, and nothing can be added to the Resolution. When we come to consider the Bill, the answer will be, "No, that is increasing the charge upon the subject." Therefore, it will not be possible to turn the "may" into "shall," nor to remove any one of the restrictions, because it is not covered by the Financial Resolution. I do urge the Government to withdraw this Resolution to-day. I would rather delay it two or three more days and get a Bill that is a real fulfilment of the intention of the House of Commons. I ask the Government to reconsider the matter, and, at least, to cover the two points that I have mentioned. I should like them also to cover the wider point, but I realise that the additional £550,000 required to remove the income limit altogether is a very large sum.

Sir J. REMNANT: It would not cost anything like that.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is the estimate which the representative of the Treasury has given us, and I must accept that. I feel that I am not justified in asking them to increase their costs by over £500,000; but these two other matters are relatively small—they would not cost, between them, more than £70,000 or £80,000 a year—and it is very well worth while to remove what are real hardships, real grievances and real drawbacks to the pensioners at so low a cost. I therefore urge the Government to withdraw the Resolution to-day. We shall not delay it. We shall lose no time. I am perfectly certain that my hon Friends here would assist the Parliamentary Secretary with the Resolution, and, if
necessary, would deny themselves the making of speeches in order to benefit the pensioners, if he would withdraw it today and bring it in in a widened form on another day, so that justice may be done and the mistake of the House of Commons in 1920 may be remedied. In 1920 we were told that the Bill as then introduced would cost the country annually from £1,500,000 to £2,000,000. I think that that was the figure; perhaps the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong. It has never amounted to that. It has never cost anything like £1,500,000 to £2,000,000 a year. It is now costing £1,000,000 a year.

Sir J. DAVIDSON: Not that.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: According to the White Paper it is costing £1,000,000 a year, and there is, under this proposal, to be an addition of £300,000, but even that will not bring it up to the minimum cost which the House of Commons in 1920 thought was going to be reached. I urge the Government to withdraw the Resolution and come before the House with something which the House wants to give to the pensioners. The hon. Gentleman will then get the Resolution through with all the help that we can give him.

Sir JOHN SIMON: I rise to associate myself with the appeal that has just been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester (Sir L. Worthington-Evans). The truth is, of course, that, when we deal on the Floor of the House or in Committee with questions of this sort, we find ourselves in a very different atmosphere from that which prevails when we are asked these questions and appealed to by these deserving people, who have not always had a full measure of justice. It is quite true that the constitutional rule is a wise one which requires the further expenditure of money to be conditioned by the willingness of the Government of the day to propose it. I do not wish to see that rule altered, because it is an essential protection to the finances of the country. But in the present instance it does appear that the Financial Secretary is putting forward a Resolution so limited in terms as, in effect, to deny to the House of Commons or the Committee any opportunity, even within reasonable limits, of remoulding it or amending it at all.
While I quite see that the responsibility is bound to be primarily the responsibility of the Government, and that it is for this Labour Government to say, now that they are in office, what they feel they really can do in connection with these unfortunate people, at the same time I cannot help thinking that they would be willing to give the House of Commons and the Committee a wider latitude than this Resolution gives. We all want to act reasonably. While all parts of the House are sympathetic towards these hard cases, we all know that the country has a terrible burden to bear, and we must act reasonably; but this Resolution, as it is put down to-day, really ties the hands of Members of Parliament completely, and makes it impossible for them to take any effective step to mould or modify these arrangements should they think it well to do so. The hon. Gentleman has giver, one or two examples of how it would be apparently quite reasonable to enlarge it. The Rules of the House do not permit private Members to do it. It would no doubt be possible to consider whether one could not move to leave out some words in the Resolution which might for the time being bring the Government up with a round turn, but we none of us wish to take measures of that sort. In all parts of the House hon. Members have given pledges and assurances and expressions of their sympathy, which was quite genuine, and they find the door is clanged against them so that they are unable to take the smallest effective part in making those pledges good.

Mr. BAKER: I doubt the accuracy of the statement that had the late Government continued in office they would have introduced legislation to put this matter on a sound basis, but I nevertheless welcome the support of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester (Sir L. Worthington-Evans). I believe on this occasion the Labour Government is making a serious, if not a disastrous, mistake in endeavouring to avoid dealing with the serious situation with regard to superannuation. As I understand it, there are three methods of dealing with pensions. The men and women who were pensioned prior to the date in 1920 are treated on one basis, then for a period of about two years you get another method of super-
annuation, and subsequently you have the post-War method, which is a third method of dealing with the subject. To endeavour to deal with the superannuation of ex-Government servants, men who have served in the police, the Civil Service and the Army and the Navy, on such a chaotic basis is extremely unsatisfactory to the Government service and to the Government itself. I should like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to be a little more definite and explicit with regard to the promise of further legislation. I am as anxious as he is that no time should be lost in coming to the rescue of the more poorly paid pensioners. Will he make a definite statement that he and the Government are prepared to deal with the larger question in the immediate future? It seems to me that a man in receipt of a pension just below £100 per annum is likely under these proposals ultimately to secure a larger annual payment than the man in receipt of exactly £100 per annum, and if that is the case it is an entirely new point so far as Government proposals on the subject of superannuation are concerned.
But there is a further point with which I am particularly concerned, because it is proposed by Order in Council to deal with Army and Navy Pensioners on this basis if this Resolution is passed. I want to ask the Secretary to the Treasury to let me have a reply in regard to the following typical case. A pre-War pensioner was in receipt of £41 per annum in return for 21 years' service in the Army. On the outbreak of the Great War he re-enlisted and served for an additional five years, rising to the rank of Captain. As the result of that additional five years' service the pre-War pension was re-assessed and to-day he is in receipt of £71 9s. 7d. It appears that, had he not re-enlisted, the pre-War pension under this proposal would have been reassessed and increased by 65 per cent., and he would have received £67 14s. 3d. Does the difference between the £67 14s. 3d. and £71 9s. 7d. represent the increased pension to which the Government feel that man was entitled for his re-enlistment, for his distinguished service and his promotion to a Captaincy? I feel very strongly that this question is too large and too complex to be dealt with in this way. I want to join in
the appeal to the Government to withdraw this Resolution in order that a complete, comprehensive and equitable proposal may be laid before the House The men we are talking about retired on pension before 1920. I cannot speak with any authority with regard to the life of the average civil servant and the average naval and military pensioner, but I incline to think, so far as the Civil Service is concerned, the average life of a pensioner retiring at or about 60 years of age, is no more than five or six years, so that as far as a large proportion of these pensioners are concerned it must be true that, taking the law of averages, their numbers are almost exhausted. I think that is a very important point for consideration. My final words are to quote from a letter I received to-day from a man who retired at 60 and has been on pension for about 10 years. He says:
The bulk of the pensioners who have been struggling on for the last 10 years-to exist on their pension and to keep up appearances are left to continue the struggle to the bitter end.
5.0 P.M.
The proposal embodied in the Resolution deals only with the lowly-paid pensioners, who are not representative of the whole. I admit the claims of the more poorly paid men to the full, but the great body of pensioners whom we are considering to-day do not fall within this category, and I hope sincerely that the appeal which has been made will be heartily responded to.

Sir J. DAVIDSON: I rise to endorse what has been said by every Member who has spoken so far and to request the Government to withdraw this Resolution. It is an insult to pensioners and an absolute violation of promises and pledges. I want to say a word about the lower paid pensioners. The man who was getting 10s. a week after 22 years' service in the Army or the Navy spent in an unhealthy climate is now to get an addition of 1s. 5d. a week. He is old and unemployed, and there is no other means of existence, and he has the alternative of starvation or the workhouse. That is a pleasant prospect for a man in his declining years. What generous treatment it is from a party that boasts that it is the protagonist of the under-dog, and what a boon to the Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer that nearly all the men affected by this Resolution are over 65 years of age and are dying off rapidly. Many of them are
starving and in rags and many are in the workhouse. I have a sheaf of letters from these pensioners, and the first I took up this morning was from a man who had been wounded, had five war medals for 15 years' service, served in Africa and India, and was drawing 10d. a day. Does this Resolution really strike the Government as being consonant with the flowery speeches trumpeted from every platform in the country proclaiming themselves as the champions of the unfortunate individuals who through stress of circumstances were down and out? The £300,000 mentioned in the Resolution, I take it, includes the cost involved by its retrospective action.

Mr. GRAHAM: The retrospective element will cost £225,000 additional, or rather more than £500,000 in all in the present financial year.

Sir J. DAVIDSON: I misunderstood. I gather this increase is to cost £300,000 a year. I think that will cease to be a cost to the. Exchequer in five years' time.' These men are old, and they are dying off very rapidly. They average nearly 70. They are coming on to the Old Age Pension and with the means limit there will be money saved, and this is a diminishing cost which will disappear practically in five years' time. I think the Financial Secretary should have stated that when he said this would cost £300,000 a year. It is not really £300,000 a year at all. Anyhow, the sum is absolutely inadequate to keep these men from hunger and privation. I attended on Saturday a meeting of the executive council of naval and military warriors, and the members one and all expressed their absolute wholehearted disgust, not on their own behalf, but on behalf of all those who are trying to eke out a miserable existence. From the point of view of the Army and Navy, I think the words of Napier are true to-day, where he says, at the end of the last chapter of the "Peninsular War":
Thus the war terminated, and with it all remembrance of the veterans' services.
I join with those men in expressing in the most emphatic way my disgust at this totally inadequate Resolution. If they were not a patriotic body, and if they had the power to strike and were willing to strike, they would have got all they asked for and much more long ago. I well
remember the Resolution, exactly two years ago, moved by a Labour Member and hotly supported by the Labour party, on this very subject. I should like to read it, more especially because I helped to draft it.
In the opinion of this House the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920, are inadequate in meeting the case of the Army and Navy pensioner, who has been mm bio to save during the period of his employment by the State, and who, after long periods of service in all parts of the British Empire, has been thrown on the labour market unskilled and often broken down in health and unfit to work, and, further, that in the opinion of this House the Government should take immediate steps to apply the Jerram scheme to all naval pensioners.
How is it that the Labour parry, who produced and so warmly supported that Resolution, should now have the effrontery to introduce a Resolution of the character which we are now considering? I feel it to be my duty, if this Resolution is not withdrawn, to move the rejection of the Bill, on Second Reading, lock, stock and barrel, and in doing this I have the concurrence of the executive council of the Navy and Army Pre-War Pensioners' Association.
I want to turn to another aspect of this matter and to me a very painful one. The Resolution is hedged about by restrictions as regards means. The original Act was similarly encumbered with such restrictions and over and above them all there was a definite limitation of £150 a year in the case of a single man and £200 in the case of a married one. Feeling, as I did, that the men concerned were drawing a pension for service actually performed, I also felt that any restriction operating in connection with the means limit was obviously unfair, except such an overriding restriction as would prevent any individual from drawing more than the post-War scale. Feeling this very strongly, I took such action as lay in my power to secure the object I had in view. I drafted a pledge, which was printed and circulated in practically every constituency throughout the country at the last Election I am an ardent fisherman. I cast my fly over almost every stretch of water in the country, and, unlike most fishermen—I am not going to exaggerate—I was more than satisfied with the results, for I hooked with the greatest case the very largest fish that swim in the Labour pools. I have the very pledge here,
signed by a large number of members of the Ministry, not to speak of a larger number all signed by Members of the Labour party. I hold in my hand the actual pledge which was signed by the Prime Minister and the Lord Privy Seal. I regret that neither of them is in his place. The Home Secretary—I regret that he is not here—was not content with signing the pledge but even sent a letter, stating in the strongest possible terms, three days before polling day, that he would do all in his power to assist in achieving the object I had in view. I mention the Home Secretary because I should like to draw attention to his emphatic pledge, in view of his performance last Thursday in the matter of the reinstatement of the police strikers. I shall have much pleasure in circulating these letters and pledges round the Committee for inspection, if anyone wants to see them and to see their genuine character.
The pledge was a definite promise on the part of the pledger to vote in support of the removal of the means limit in pre-War pensions. I propose to put those pledges to the test. If all those Members of the Government and of the Labour party who signed the pledge carry out their promise and do not break their vows they will come into the Division Lobby with me and vote for the rejection of the Bill which they themselves will have introduced. The Bill will be rejected and they will then be bound in honour to bring in a new Bill which will remove the means limit. We have had some experience of broken pledges in the last few weeks. If they break this pledge it will be the fourth that they have broken in vapid succession: Service pay, ex-ranker officers, police strikers, and now pre-War pensioners. Some people collect stamps and other butterflies. I am making a hobby, and have been for the last few weeks, of collecting broken pledges, and I propose publishing my collection illustrated by photographs of the vow-breakers. Surely a pledge is a document which has got to be honoured. If hon. Members opposite think it has not, they are dragging politics to a depth of damnation which it is not possible to describe. The vast majority of the electorate, they know well, are wholly ignorant concerning the financial capacity of the country, and the Labour candidates
are prepared to take advantage of this ignorance to promise impossibilities if it will lead to securing a few votes. Look at the Minister for War. I regret that he is not here too. He went to the Home Secretary's division two or three days before the by-election and announced that his party would give the old age pension of 15s. to everyone at the age of 65. He is a responsible person and he knows full well that that proposal would cost £110,000,000 a year. What was he suggesting that for? It was to get their votes—and a most immoral way of doing it. It is simply a question of inciting and inflaming the minds of those who understand nothing of finance. I wonder whether that is right. Is it fair? I consider it is most immoral, yet I see hon. Members opposite sitting with a smile on their face. Apparently they have got accustomed and hardened to it. If my conception concerning pledges is wrong, I do not think any decent man ought to touch politics at all. If, however, I am right, every pledge-breaker should be pilloried and branded as a liar. I have been a Member of the House for some six years, and my experience is that it is difficult for any Member under the most auspicious circumstances to run absolutely straight, but if there is nothing evil in a broken pledge politics indeed has sunk to a low level.
I wish to ask the Financial Secretary one or two questions which are very pertinent to this Resolution. It will depend very largely on his reply how any action of mine, and I should think of many hon. Members will be shaped. I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to raise the means limit for old age pensions to some level which he has not yet defined. He has practically told the Committee so. I want to know if all those men who come under categories A and B in this Resolution, that is, whose original pensions did not exceed £100 a year, will on reaching the age of 70 be entitled to receive their service pensions, increased under the 1920 Act and this Resolution, in addition to that old pension. Can he give me an anwer to that now? My second point is this, that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer defines the new means limit for old age pensions—at present it is £50—if it is raised to £100, will he guarantee to remove restrictions
of every sort and description on pre-War pensions which are below the limit of £100, so that in every case the man can draw the full 70 per cent. increase, plus his old age pension, if it comes within the limit prescribed? Many of these men are 70 years of age, and the remainder are approaching that age; they are over 65 years of age, so that the questions I am now putting are of real importance. I am sure the Committee will forgive my anxiety in regard to this subject. My anxiety is two-fold—to keep these old warriors out of the workhouse and to prevent any recurrence of this wholesale pledge-breaking to which the Labour party has shown itself prone. I regret it, but, at the moment, the slogan of the Labour party should be, "I buy your votes and I break my vows."

Mr. LINFIELD: I should like to associate myself with almost everything that has been said in regard to this question. I find myself bitterly disappointed by the statement of the Financial Secretary. I cannot understand the Government bringing in proposals of this kind, remembering the pledges that were made not only by themselves but by their followers, and the fact that at the present time from all sides of the Committee, Conservative, Labour and Liberal Members are pressing them to do justice to these people in regard to whom pledges have been given over and over again that justice should be done. I want to add my plea to the Financial Secretary to withdraw this Resolution, otherwise if it goes to a vote I should certainly be compelled to vote against it.
The Financial Secretary has told us that it would involve legislation to deal with the questions that have been raised from both sides of the Committee to-day; but I would point out that frequently there have been agreed Measures passed in this House with very little loss of time. Surely, a Measure of this kind, strongly supported from all quarters, could be looked upon as an agreed Measure and would be passed without any very great loss of time. We are told that it is a question of cost. May I remind the hon. Member that not very long ago this House voted five cruisers. I do not want to make too much capital out of that, but, surely, he might cut out one cruiser and try to deal justly by these old people.
At all events, I do not think he would be opposed from his own benches if he could see his way clear to cut out one cruiser and do justice to the pensioners.
May I give two illustrations of hardship? Here is a case of two men working side by side in a post office, one a bachelor, known not to save, the other a married man with children who buys his house. The first obtains an increase of his pension but the other, under this proposal, is denied an increase, although he is a widower with an invalid daughter. Here is a quotation from a letter of a hard case:
For two years I was allowed £40 per year, being a married man. I had the misfortune to lose my wife, and £40 per annum was taken from me. Having no one to look alter me, I had to engage a nurse-housekeeper. I am only able to get about by the aid of crutches and a bath-chair, and it costs me £42 per annum, which I am not allowed to claim. My age is now 74½ years.
Then, again, very minute questions are asked when pensioners are making their claims. Here is an example of one from a Post Office official to one of the pensioners:
With reference to the statement attached to your claim for an increase of your pension, I have to request that you will furnish an estimate of the value of nourishment supplied by your children during the illness of your wife, and the days within which such nourishment was supplied.
Questions of that sort are not in accordance with the wish of any Member of this House. Every hon. Member is exceedingly anxious that something should be done to remedy such cases as these, and I hope that the Financial Secretary will agree to the very evident desire of the Committee. If so, he will have the advantage of doing something to carry out the election pledges of the Government, and he will have the advantage of satisfying his own followers. If this question were left to a free vote, without the party Whips on, we could carry our ideas by an overwhelming majority. I do, therefore, hope that the Financial Secretary will yield to the desire of the Committee, withdraw this Resolution, and make preparation to bring in a Bill covering all the pledges that have been made. In that case, we can assure him of a great deal of support from all parts of the House, and everyone will desire to help the Measure through as quickly as possible.

Mr. RHYS: I can only imagine that the reason that the Government have not provided more money for these poor pensioners is that when they have been in office for a little time the army of bureaucratic officials which will be created when the mines and the land have been nationalised will all require pensions, and there will be no money left for these unfortunate old people. I should like to know from the Financial Secretary why he, splits up the pensions not exceeding £50 into two parts—the pensions not exceeding £25, and the pensions exceeding £25 but not exceeding £50. What will it cost to give a level up of 70 per cent. all round, instead of the 65 per cent. at present proposed? Why is the differentiation made? The Committee has a right to know. There is another point of injustice, which is only a small point and very few men are affected, and it appears to me that is all the more reason why the injustice should be removed. I refer to the provision as to pensions for single men and married men. Clause 2, paragraph 3, of the Act of 1920 stipulates that the pensioner must satisfy the pension authority that his means, including the pension, are less than £150 a year if unmarried or £200 a year if married. Under that Clause, the Minister of Pensions, when dealing with an application must, according to Treasury Regulations, require a certified statement of the income of the wife of the married man. My point is this that there are a certain number of applications sent to the Ministry of Pensions on behalf of married men who have not seen their wives for 10 or 20 years; they have been deserted and the wives are probably dead. I think it would be presumed in a Court of law that they were dead. In those cases, where a certificate is required, the married man has no chance at all of getting any increase of pension. The Ministry of Pensions or some other Department could easily bring forward Regulations to deal with that class of case, which is creating hardship. These men have a right to look to the present Government for some redemption of the pledges which they have given, especially as it will not cost very much. Nothing like the millions would be required to carry out these pledges as are required to carry out some of the more reckless pledges which the Government have given.
A further point which I wish to drive home, and in regard to which I wish to press for a removal of the grievance, is the provision that the pensioner must reside in the British Isles. I see no justification whatever for that stipulation. There are large numbers of men of the Royal Irish Constabulary who have been pensioned after perhaps 20 years' service and who are not necessarily old. Many of them have sons and daughters abroad. These men were turned out of their own country—driven out at the point of the sword. Why should not they be allowed to go to live in one of our Dominions and to spend their days there in useful work? They lived under the most appalling conditions during their last years in Ireland Many of them had their wives murdered, and they were lucky not to be murdered themselves. I appeal for the removal of this disqualification. I understood the Financial Secretary to say that the cost of that proposal would be £65,000. On what estimate does he base that statement? I cannot see that it would cost much more money to send out the remittances abroad. It would only be the cost of the postage.
The country is being rapidly disillusioned as to the value of the Government's pledges, and if hon. Members opposite are going to claim any respect in the country for their pledges they had better take this opportunity of withdrawing this Resolution and providing another one which will more adequately meet the needs of the case.

Mr. HAYES: I join with other hon. Members in saying that we are disappointed with the proposals of the Government to meet what was the unanimous decision of the House last year. I am quite sure that this proposition will be nobody's baby. While I appreciate the point that was made by many speakers that the Government and hon. Members on these benches are pledged to a fulfilment of what was contained both in the letter and in the spirit of last year's Resolution, I am also confident that neither any member of the Government nor any hon. Member on the Benches behind the Government is desirous of avoiding the fulfilment of their pledges, and if hon. Members opposite or below the Gangway will help us to keep those pledges, here is an excellent opportunity for the Government to take back this
Resolution and meet the contentious points that have arisen. The Resolution which anticipates the Bill does everything but meet the injustices that have arisen out of the Increase of Pensions Act of 1920. It aims at slightly increasing the percentage increase to meet the cost of living, but does nothing to meet the anomalies and injustices which the House was convinced last year it was more necessary to remove in some ways even than it was to increase the percentage.
On the question of whether it should be discretionary or compulsory on the part of the local authorities to give effect to the provision of the Bill, what is the objection to turning the word "may" into "shall"? If it be argued that there may be considerable opposition from local authorities, the answer is that the vast majority of local authorities have carried out the provisions of the Clause with the word "may," while the objections of the minority who have not carried out the desire of the House cannot be represented as the objections of a majority. I hope that we shall have inserted in the Bill an amendment of the existing Act in order that local authorities, however small they may be in number, shall be compelled to do what the majority of local authorities have had the decency to do without compulsion. These local authorities would not object to the others being compelled to do what they have done.
On the question of residence within the British Isles, I am anxious to avoid repeating any arguments that have been put forward already, but I made a special point of it last year, and I wish to reinforce what was said by the hon. Member who has just sat down. He mentioned that pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary, by the special circumstances which have arisen, have in many instances had to seek other countries in which they might earn their livelihood or spend the rest of their days. We should endeavour to meet the unfortunate circumstances of those pensioners, to say nothing of the other pensioners in this country who, if they have to go to other countries, should be allowed to go where they wish. I will not confine myself to the Dominions, but say that such men should have the right to go to any part of the world they desire. It is
known that the families of large numbers of Irishmen have migrated to America, and if those Royal Irish Constabulary pensioners have children who have gone to America it is not right that they should be debarred from joining their children there merely because the Act of 1920 contained a restrictive provision, and I hope the Act will be amended so that pensioners may go to any part of the world they like and receive their pension there, provided that the necessary safeguards are forthcoming that those who receive the pensions are the persons entitled to them.
On the general question of pensions increase, I cannot understand why we have created even more anomalies by making such differentiation in the percentage of increase. The cost of living at the moment is 73 per cent. above the pre-War cost, and the highest increase proposed by the Financial Secretary is 70 per cent. That may be getting very near the mark. But the question which is exercising the minds of the old pre-War pensioner is not so much the increase in the cost of living over pre-War pensions as the fact that since the War there has been a higher appreciation of the status of Government servants, which has resulted in a difference between the new-pensions and the pre-War pensions, not of 73 per cent. increase, but of 173 per cent. increase over the pre-War scale. The old pensioners are a class who are not able to carry out any extensive agitation or organised effort, but they rendered services which were equal in value, so far as the community were concerned, to those services which were rendered by those who came at a later date, who have had their standard raised to 173 per cent. increase compared with pre-War figure, while for the older pensioners there is proposed little more than 70 per cent. increase to bring them into line with the post-War pensioners. I confine myself to these few remarks now, because I am hopeful that when the Financial Secretary comes to reply he will indicate a little more fully what are the difficulties with regard to the points raised, and, if he will meet the anomalies and injustices created by the present Act, I am confident that he will have the support of all parties in this House in carrying an amending Bill to effect that object.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I rise to endorse heartily the appeal that has been made from every quarter of the Committee to the Financial Secretary to withdraw this Financial Resolution. The Financial Resolution is a very useful document and has great advantages. It helps the House of Commons to realise the exact amount of expenditure which the House will be called upon to provide, but it also has great disadvantages, and on this occasion the disadvantages are that, if we pass this Financial Resolution, we are cribbed, cabined and confined. We cannot alter or amend it. My hon. Friend must realise that every Member of this House is anxious to amend that Resolution. He knows that we are all pledged, and those of us who are pledged are determined to see that our pledges are carried out. I am certain that that is the position which the Government also would desire, just as much as we. I give them the credit of wanting to do what they regard as their level best for these ex-service pensioners, but our contention is that they are doing that in a most niggardly and almost inhuman fashion. They are pledged to do their level best, and they come forward with a Resolution which has not received a single word of commendation from any quarter of the Committee.
I am glad that my hon. Friend has promised to deal with the case of the Royal Irish Constabulary pensioners. Many of my Friends in this House have kept the case of these gallant men before the House, and I am anxious to know whether the Government intend to maintain the restrictions which at present exist. Why should an ex-Royal Irish Constabulary pensioner if, because of his Royal services, Ireland is no longer a place in which he can live in peace, be cut off from joining his family anywhere else and drawing there the pension to which by his services he is entitled? I put the point with regard to these gallant men as well as with regard to the other ex-service pensioners. I remember, as I had something to do with the Act of 1920, that the House then intended that these men should be justly and fairly treated. The hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes) has drawn attention to the use of the specific word "may." We were told when the Bill was passing that the word "may" meant "shall," and we find all over the country some local authorities
doing the decent thing and others not, because they shelter themselves behind what is called the permissive use of the word "may." I would ask my hon. Friend to take that into consideration when he is introducing the Bill.
We are told that the concessions demanded will cost the country something like £70,000 or £80,000. It is false economy to say that because it would cost for an amount of this kind therefore we are not going to have a decent Bill. The Government must realise that these men have been promised a reasonable and substantial increase. They are now faced with the fact that they are offered what is but little more than they had in the past, and I appeal to the Government to obey what I feel sure is their own instinct and the desire of every Member of this House, to withdraw this Resolution and to bring forward another, a fairer and more equitable resolution, for which they will receive the support of every Member of this House.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: There would be no disposition I think, on the whole, to quarrel with the course which the Debate has taken, but before I say a word about what the Government propose to do I wish to take some exception to the speech that was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Fareham (Sir J. Davidson). During the whole of that speech he indulged in charges of breaches of faith and broken pledges. I wish to make it plain to the Committee that the issue which faced the Government was simply the issue of introducing this immediate Measure to improve the percentages or of embarking upon large legislation which would necessarily take some time for discussion and which was bound up with the general question regarding the old age pensioners in this country. But I do not take any further exception to it this afternoon because I believe that we have a perfectly fair reply. The hon. and gallant Member completely ignored the fact that during a considerable portion of the time to which he referred the Government of his party was in power and nothing was done to give effect to these pledges, and moreover he entirely ignored that what we put forward this afternoon is on all fours with what his own leaders on the Front Bench proposed not so very long ago.

Sir J. DAVIDSON: On this matter I have been acting altogether outside party lines since I have been in the House.

Mr. GRAHAM: The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that the services which he has rendered in connection with this matter have been altogether outside party lines, but he made a violent party attack on us.

Sir J. DAVIDSON: I would have made just as violent an attack on the Front Bench on this side in the same circumstances.

Mr. GRAHAM: The hon. and gallant Member referred to the original Resolution of 1920. I am bound to point out that it was just as rigid as the present Resolution. These Resolutions admit of very little discussion or amendment. The difficulty of any Government, in a case of this kind, is to bring forward proposals which will meet the views of hon. Members without going to extremes. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench made it plain that he spoke for his party, and that, he did not ask us to abandon the means limits, which I said would cost, at all events as regards the limits on pensions, about £552,000 per annum. Of course it would cost some millions of money if they were abandoned altogether. That was not pressed, however. What have emerged are requests for amendment of the law in two special directions. First, there is the case of pensioners who are resident outside this country; and, secondly, there, was the point as to "may" and "shall"—a legal point with which it is not very difficult to deal. May I refer, first of all, to speeches which have been made with regard to the alteration of the percentage increase as between pensions of £25 and £50? The object of that is to give a higher rate of percentage increase to a very poorly paid class of pensioners. Although we have to exclude the great rise in the cost of living in previous years, yet it is true to say that when we bring the percentage increase up to date, we have gone very near to what is the actual increase in the cost of living, not only in July of last year but also substantially to what is the increased cost now. Therefore, we are able to say this afternoon that we have gone a long way to meet the case of the poorest class of pensioners, and have brought that class up almost in strict terms to the present
increase in the cost of living. This is a substantial remedy in the interests of these people.
The next point raised is a legal question, regarding "may" and "shall" in the Act of 1920. For all practical purposes, this turns on what has been done by the police authorities and similar bodies in Great Britain. As far as we can make out, there was an understanding in 1920 that this Clause was of a compulsory character. But experience proves that that was not so, and that a certain number of the local authorities—they were only a small number—did not give effect to this increase of pensions, at all events, on the full scale. Let me put the actual facts before the House. Only four local authorities in this country have refused altogether to give their pensioners the benefit of the increase.

Sir J. REMNANT: Eight.

Mr. GRAHAM: Whether it is four or eight, it is a very small number. Certain of the local authorities have not increased their pensions in the full terms of the meaning of the Act of 1920. Other local authorities have introduced different variations which fall short of the full application of that measure. I will put the matter on a monetary basis. The strict position is that if the Act of 1920 had been fully applied by the local authorities, the gross cost on the 1920 basis would have been about £256,000 per annum. In fact, the cost incurred by these local authorities, to the extent to which they have given effect to the provisions of the Act, is about £238,000. So that there is less than £20,000 of monetary difference on the failure of certain local authorities fully to apply the terms of the Act. There is not a great deal in it from the point of view of cash, but I agree that there is a great deal in it from the point of view of uniformity, and it does seem undesirable, if certain local authorities do their full duty voluntarily under that Act, that certain other local authorities should escape. But I am bound to remind the House that there is very serious difficulty in any effort to coerce a local authority in this matter. It is true that when we pass general legislation we, in effect, coerce local authorities, but as a rule we take the precaution of consulting them in advance. There is a certain difference
in this matter as regards the police, where the cost is borne as to 50 per cent. by the local authority and as to 50 per cent. by the State. That principle applies also, of course, to the increase of pensions, and if any further increase of pension is suggested, it is debatable how far, short of compulsion, the local authority will give effect to that further increase.
In response to the request of hon. Members in all parts of the House, I am quite willing to take the risk which is undoubtedly involved, and to do everything in my power, within the limits of an amended Resolution, to get the local authorities to act uniformly. I do not disguise the fact that there will be difficulty in the matter. I can only say to the House that if they will give me an opportunity I will do my best to overcome it. The second point referred to residence outside the British Isles. In my introductory speech I made it perfectly plain that my personal sympathies were altogether with the removal of that restriction which, while the original Clause was intended to apply to the increase in the cost of living in Great Britain, no doubt did debar certain people who had earned a kind of right and who should not be penalised because of the accident of residence in other parts of the world, Our only reason for delaying a remedy on that point was that it was bound up with other changes which might form the subject of legislation. Hon. Members have pressed me on that second point, and, accordingly, although it will cost an additional £60,000 or move over and above the £500,000 which we are providing in this financial year, or £300,000 in a normal year, I am willing also to give effect to that suggestion.

Colonel Sir CHARLES YATE: Does that apply to Chelsea pensioners?

Mr. GRAHAM: I could not say offhand. Everybody covered by the 1920 legislation will get the benefit of the increase, irrespective of his place of residence. That is as I understand it. Let me, in summary, indicate the position, in order that there may be no misunderstanding.

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: Before the hon. Gentleman does that, may I ask
him a question? Did I understand him to state that when the right hon. Member for Colchester (Sir L. Worthington-Evans) said that he would not press the Government for the £560,000, in order to do away with the means limit Clause, my right hon. Friend was understood to be speaking for the Opposition and the Conservative party? I, for one, oppose that idea.

Mr. GRAHAM: It is not for me to say how far speeches delivered from the Front Opposition Bench represent the views of other members of the party opposite. The right hon. Member for Colchester, when told that the concession as to the means limit, applied to the actual pension, would in fact, cost £560,000, most frankly and openly recogmised that he could not press that proposal. As that must be the subject of future legislation with which all kinds of other questions will be bound up, it could hardly be pressed upon the Committee now. At all events I could not give a guarantee on that point. What I am going to do is this. Having regard to the course of the discussion, I will withdraw this Resolution, and I will introduce an amended Resolution to abolish the restriction as regards residence, and to achieve the second point of uniformity among local authorities. I will put that Resolution on the Order Paper in the hope that all sections of the House, without prejudice to any future legislation, will give assent to the Resolution with little or no discussion. If hon. Members will agree to that course, there should be no difficulty whatever in getting the "Resolution through in the amended form.

Sir J. DAVIDSON: What are the Government going to do with the means limit? What is in the background? The whole of the Members who have spoken, and many others, are pledged to vote for the abolition of the means limit. What is the Government's intention? Will they tell us something? Will they bring in a Bill later on? Although it might cost £500,000 this year, it will cost very much less in five years, and eventually will disappear altogether.

Mr. GRAHAM: The means limit is bound up with similar questions in regard to Old Age Pensions. I should hope that
legislation would be introduced to deal with the latter matter, but, obviously, I cannot bind the Government to that course to-day.

Mr. GWYNNE: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has made a very conciliatory speech, and has made proposals which go some way to meet the objections to the Financial Resolution on the Paper, but I must take exception to remarks which he made in criticism of the way in which the objections were put forward from this side of the Committee, and particularly to his complaint that the hon. and gallant Member for Fareham (Sir J. Davidson) had used too strong language. The Financial Secretary seemed entirely to have forgotten the delays that have taken place in introducing this Measure, and, secondly, the very definite pledges which were made during the General Election by the leaders of his own party. He made no apology to us for having delayed the realisation of those pledges, although Members in all parts of the House have reminded him of them. The Government have had four months to consider the question. The late Government were prevented from introducing their Measure only because of the Dissolution. A Bill had been drafted and was down for consideration when the Dissolution occurred. The present Government have had four months to deal with the matter, and they had before them the pledges of their leaders. They have had also reminders from the Association of Navy and Army Pensioners. How came the leaders of the party at the General Election to sign this declaration?


"(a) I will press for the introduction of the Bill amending the Pensions Increase Act, 1920 (which has been postponed owing to the Dissolution of Parliament), at the earliest possible date, on the reassembly of the new Parliament.
(b) Being of opinion that the means limitation of pre-War and other State pensions is subversive of thrift and sound national policy, I pledge myself, if elected, to vote in support of its removal."

6.0 P.M.
That was signed by the present Prime Minister, and by the Deputy Leader of the House. What does it mean? Does it mean that the right hon. Gentleman will pledge himself at some future time, or does it mean a pledge that he will do his best here and now? We are having these pledges constantly before us and the Prime Minister recently said he thought
it very undesirable to sign these questionnaires. I have always thought so. I never sign them, but hon. Gentlemen who have signed them and have gained votes by doing so, have no right to come here and say they are going to reconsider the matter. We have a right to press them for some reasons why they cannot carry out their pledge in this manner, and although, as I say, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has endeavoured to meet some of the views expressed on this side, it is only right to point out that it was not till the Government had been pressed upon this matter both by hon. Members on this side, and by hon. Members below the Gangway opposite and, in fact, had been told practically that the House would not pass this Resolution unless its provisions were increased, that they now agree to do so. I hope some explanation will be given of these broken pledges, and that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will not take exception to those on this side who are driving these matters home, and who believe that the whole life of the country will be upset if the practice is established of candidates giving electioneering pledges and afterwards entirely ignoring them.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I think the Government have done a very happy thing in agreeing to withdraw this Resolution, and I quite understand the difficulty of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in not being able to give a definite pledge, at this moment, that the question of the means limit is to be decided here and now. I understand that matter will be reconsidered by the Treasury and by the Minister of Pensions, and that every effort will be made to come to a solution which will meet the views of the great bulk of Members of the House. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gwynne) told us that the Government of which he was so distinguished an ornament were going to bring in a much more generous Bill than the Bill outlined in this Resolution, but were prevented from doing so by the Dissolution. He went on to say that the Labour Government had actually had four months in which to bring in this Bill, but had not done so. What was his Government doing during the twelve months they were in office? They had the same reproaches hurled at them by the hon. and gallant Member for Fareham (Sir J. Davidson). He was not quite so
violent then as he is now, but in substance he used the same arguments when the late Government were in office, and so did the hon. Member for Holborn (Sir J. Remnant), and in fact Members in all parts of the House did so. I have a copy of a Resolution which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. J. Robertson) this time last year, and seconded by the present Financial Secretary to the Admiralty. That Resolution is as follows:
That in the opinion of this House the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920, are inadequate"—
I hope the hon. Member for Eastbourne remembers this—
to meet the needs of pre-War pensioners, and that further legislation should be passed to augment the increases allowed by that Act and amend other provisions of a limiting and restrictive character which have disqualified many deserving pensions from receiving benefit under the Act.
Why did not the Government, of which the hon. Member for Eastbourne is a Member, accede to that request? Why did they vote it down? Why did not hon. Gentlemen opposite take action in regard to this unfortunate Resolution which we still hear re-echoing? Why did they not meet a little earlier during the long Autumn Recess and ask the Government to relieve the plight of these poor old men, many of whom have died in the interval? Because, forsooth, the Government could not find time during their 12 months of office—in which they did precious little—to bring forward this matter. At any rate, "There is joy in the Kingdom of Heaven over one sinner that repenteth," and we can very well understand that there will be joy among the angels this afternoon. I have listened to this Debate throughout and I feel sure the Committee is in earnest. Might I say very humbly to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, that before he brings in his next Resolution he should consult some of the Members of this House who have taken an interest in this subject—Members on both sides of the House and some of his own supporters as well—and try to get an agreed Measure. By doing so the hon. Gentleman will save a great deal of time and a great deal of his own credit and the Government's credit as well.

Mr. LUKE THOMPSON: While I welcome the statement of the Financial
Secretary that he will withdraw the Resolution, I feel that the financial provisions indicated are entirely inadequate to meet the needs of certain cases. I propose to show by one instance the inadequacy of these proposals. I understand that up to a certain point there is to be a variation or graduation in the scale of percentage additions to pre-War pensions, but that there is a series above that point involving a considerable number of men which will be shut out entirely from any advance on this scale of percentages. I have here some figures relating to pre-War pensions which apply to the police officers. Men, who were police constables before the War, receive a pension of £1 2s. Men who qualify for pensions to-day will receive £3 4s. The pre-War scale went from £1 2s. up to £2 1s., the latter figure applying to superintendents. Superintendents now retire at £6 5s. Men who, up to a certain date, were rendering service in the higher ranks of the police force are receiving the low pensions I have indicated, and whatever may happen in the future, as far as I can see, even when this Bill is introduced they will still be penalised, while the lower-grade men will only receive in some cases 30 per cent. increase, and in some cases less. To sustain my point, I do not think it necessary to adduce any single case, but I have a letter from a man in my own constituency, whom I know very well, who states that after serving 23 years in the police force he was retired in 1917, and he is now receiving, as an inspector's pension, £8 13s. 10d. per month. Had this man been kept in the police force until the 1st April, 1919, his pension to-day would be £21 per month. There, hon. Members will see, is the difference between a man having a bare existence and having an adequate remuneration. Unless special provision is made in this Bill, this man, and possibly thousands like him, will not receive any adequate advance on the very meagre pensions they are getting at present. I hope the Financial Secretary, when he brings in this amended Resolution, will make adequate provisions in every case for a fair and reasonable advance on all pre-War pensions.

Mr. J. ROBERTSON (Lord of the Treasury): I had the pleasure last year of moving the Resolution which has been referred to by the hon. and gallant
Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), and I do not think the Government with which I am associated can be accused of having broken a single pledge to the men referred to in that Resolution. Listening to the pleading speeches made from the other side of the Committee by men who formerly sat on this side, one would think that the Members of the Labour party had only dropped into politics within the last four years. As a matter of fact, last year, when I moved the Resolution which has been quoted, I pleaded with all the ability and power I had for the abolition of the Thrift Clause. I pleaded for some consideration for pensioners who were overseas. I pleaded for other reforms in connection with the pre-War pensioners, but hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite forget that they, and the Governments with which they were associated, imposed these conditions upon the pensioners, and not the Labour party. It is not many years ago since 1920, but I do not remember a single protest being made even by the hon. Member who has given us the choicest denunciation of broken pledges when these conditions were introduced.

Sir J. DAVIDSON: There are broken pledges.

Mr. ROBERTSON: Did you vote against your own Government on this matter? Did you take them into the Division Lobby? No, you sat quietly and silently. There was a protest in 1921, and it was repeated in 1922 and 1923, and not a single one of the hon. Members opposite who have raised this matter voted against their own Government. In 1923 I moved the Resolution which has been referred to and now we have all this denunciation and all this talk about broken pledges.

Sir J. DAVIDSON: Perfectly true.

Mr. ROBERTSON: We have all this talk because the Labour Government have not in four months undone all the bungling and pledge breaking and desertion to these men done by hon. Gentlemen on the other side.

Sir J. DAVIDSON: The whole question is one of signing pledges and not carrying them out—of signing them without having any intention of doing so.

Mr. ROBERTSON: I know when I am getting home, and I like to see that opposition from the other side. I am too old a hand to be upset.

Sir J. DAVIDSON: I know you are.

Mr. ROBERTSON: I do not think any sensible elector will accuse the Labour party of breaking their pledges. The electors who support the Labour party are more sensible than to believe that inside four months we can undo, as I say, all the bungling, all the pledge breaking, all the vote catching done by hon. Gentlemen who are now sitting opposite, but who were sitting on these benches. We have made a beginning to undo the injustices which the Coalition Government and the Tory party have done in years past to men who served the country. The Labour party are making a real beginning, and I believe they will continue to have the confidence of those electors who believe in the Labour party and believe they are doing something to sweep away the inequalities which hon. Members opposite created.

Earl WINTERTON: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has, I think, created two records this afternoon. One is that he has delivered the most violent speech I have ever heard delivered from the Treasury Bench. In the second place, in a long Parliamentary experience, I cannot remember another instance where, with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the Leader of the House present, the Government have had to call upon a Junior Whip to come to their assistance, in a speech of exceptional violence, in order to endeavour to undo the bad effect caused by the undue mildness of their own Financial Secretary. The hon. Gentleman has worked himself up into a great and, I have no doubt, a sincere heat over this matter, but I wish he had been present earlier in the Debate, when the Financial Secretary himself, I am informed, admitted that this Resolution did not meet the just demands of the House and that the Government intended to withdraw it and to replace it with one which would be more acceptable to the House as a whole.
Under those circumstances, I fail to see what good purpose has been served by the speech of the hon. Gentleman, who seems to think that he has scored a great point when he says that those on this side
did not take the opportunity which they might have taken last year of redressing this grievance, but he has missed the whole gravamen of the charge which my hon. and gallant Friend has brought against the Government, which is that there has never been, in the history of pledges in this House, a more cynical difference between the pledges made in the country by Members of the Government on this subject and the manner in which they are prepared to carry out those pledges when they are elected and in power. That is the charge we bring against the hon. Gentleman and his Government, and it will take more than the indignation of a Junior Whip to do away with the effect that the difference between their pledges in the country and their method of carrying them out would certainly have, not only upon the thousands of pensioners in the country generally, but upon their dependants and others and those who are interested in their case, and the hon. Gentleman, instead of working himself up to such a white heat of indignation, ought, as a member of the Whips' Office, to have gone to the Leader of the House, and suggested that in future, when they bring forward a Resolution of this kind, they should bring forward a Resolution which carries out their election pledges, and not one which, more or less, goes entirely against them.

Captain BERKELEY: If I may intervene in this somewhat heated controversy between the Whips and, may I say, the scorpions, I am bound to observe that it is not often that we in this House get the opportunity of so rich and rare an example of Satan rebuking sin as we have been privileged to observe this afternoon in the conduct, first, of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester (Sir L. Worthington-Evans), followed, very ably, by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winter-ton) and the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gwynne). These hon. and right hon. Gentlemen seem entirely to forget that, not only did the Government, of which they were such shining Members, entirely fail to carry out this obligation to do justice to the pre-War pensioners, an obligation which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir T. Davidson) and the hon. Baronet the Member for Holborn (Sir J. Remnant)
have both been constantly and very sincerely pressing for recognition, but the right hon. Member for Colchester, as he told us himself, was the very Minister who introduced the Pre-War Pensions (Increase) Act of 1920, out of which this whole imbroglio has grown. I have never been able to understand quite why it was thought necessary, in introducing that Measure, to put these limitations upon the pensioners.

Sir J. DAVIDSON: Hear, hear!

Captain BERKELEY: I am glad to observe that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fareham agrees with me there, and I have no doubt that at the time, if he had the opportunity of speaking in the Debate, he pointed out that it was grossly unfair. But, coming away from that to the undertaking which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has just given, let me say this: We all welcome the generous manner in which he has recognised the obligations of the Government with regard to the question of domicile and the question of introducing the obligatory words compelling local authorities to carry out the spirit of this Act, but when he tells us that there is no call from the House of Commons for the means limit to be removed let me assure him that he is labouring under a profound illusion. Whatever the right hon. Member for Colchester may have said of his own beliefs in this matter—and doubtless the fact that he was the father of the Pre-War Pensions (Increase) Act of 1920 may to a certain extent have coloured the beliefs—I beg to assume the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that those of us—and it must surely be the greater number of Members of this House—who are involved in this matter, and who signed these pledges, signed them with the intention of carrying them out. At least, I can speak for myself in saying that.
There is indeed a strong point in what the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham urged. There has been a change in the situation. Up to the time when the hon. and gallant Member for Fareham caused to be circulated these pledges, although there had been a great deal of sympathetic talk about these regrettable injustices to pensioners, there had been no definite promises given, but at the last General Election those promises were given, and
the country, and in particular the pensioners, expect those pledges to be implemented and look to the Government, I assure them, to carry out those pledges. If the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has been brought to believe that the country will grudge this money, if those who advise him on this question have told him it is too much to spend on rectifying an injustice, and that the country will not support him in rectifying that injustice, let me tell him that those who so advise him are wrong, and that the country looks for this injustice to be remedied. Now, since the hon. Gentleman is considering, as I understand, the terms of a new Resolution which he proposes to introduce shortly, may I ask him to outsider two other points?
In the first place, why does he limit the beneficiaries under this Resolution to people who receive less than £100 pension? I have made a rough calculation, taking the two classes of persons who will be affected by the Resolution as it stands now. Let us take the case of a man who receives a pension of £100 a year and who, therefore, is liable to receive a statutory increase of 50 per cent., and let us take the case of a man who to-day is receiving a pension of £125 a year. We may take it for granted that the person receiving £125 a year, speaking broadly, has contributed longer or more valuable services to the State than the pensioner who receives £100, yet what is the result of the Government's proposal? The result is this, that the man with £100 gets a 50 per cent. increase, which brings his pension up to £150 a year, or £25 a year more than the £125 a year pensioner, who gets no increase at all. Not only is that a most extraordinary anomaly in the Government's proposal, but if the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will look at the discrepancies which are created by the three varying percentages which he has set up, affecting the £25 pensioner, the £50 pensioner and the £100 pensioner, be will find that in a lesser degree exactly the same situation is created in respect of those varying amounts of pension. I hope that, when he introduces his amended Resolution, he will take that point into consideration, and so frame it as to do substantial justice to all the pensioners. That is the first point.
The second point that I wish to suggest to him is this—and it is particularly borne
out by the unfortunate effect of that Clause, to which we have had reference to-day, where "may" was used for "shall," where, instead of making the words obligatory, they were made optional. He creates a series of percentages, and he says that the increases shall not be more than 70 per cent., 65 per cent., 50 per cent. Who is to be the judge? You may get one local authority increasing its pensions by the maximum, and you may get another local authority, possibly in the same neighbourhood, increasing its pensions only by a half. Surely the lesson of the Pre-War Pensions Act is that you must not leave this thing to the discretion of the local authorities, but that you must lay down a hard and fast rule to apply over the whole country. I am not, as a rule, in favour of hard and fast rules, but when you are trying to remedy what is a clear and patent case of injustice like this, there is only one way in which to bring it about, and that is to make the same regulation apply throughout the length and breadth of the land.
There is one final consideration which I will ask the Financial Secretary to bear in mind when he is considering the means limitation—and I think it is over ripe for consideration—and that is this: It is all very well to say that, if you take away the means qualification, it means so much greater a call upon the Exchequer. That is quite true, but there is no means limit for the poet-War pensioners. When a post-War pensioner gets his pension, you do not take into account whether he is earning this or that. The whole purpose of this Resolution is to bring the level of pre-War pensions approximately up to the level of post-War pensions. If, therefore, in the greater case of the post-War pensions, you make no deductions for means, it is clearly grossly inequitable to make any deductions in the case of pre-War pensions. I hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will consider these three suggestions in the friendly spirit in which they were put forward.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: In view of the fact that the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has agreed to withdraw the Resolution, I do not intend to deal at any length with the arguments which have already been put forward. He has told us that he has attempted in his scheme to give a larger
percentage of benefit to those who receive the lowest range of pensions, and I have had figures worked out as to what these men actually would have received had the proposal put forward by the Financial Secretary been adopted by the Committee. I must say—and I think the Committee will agree—that there has rarely been a greater piece of effrontery than to put forward, as a response to an election pledge, sums which amount to what I am going to tell the Committee in a moment. A pensioner, before the 1920 Act, received 8d. a day. It was increased by 4d., making 1s., and then in answer to the pledge, they gave at the Election, the Government were going to give an increase, under this scheme, of 1⅗d. a day.
I wonder how many votes the Prime Minister and the Lord Privy Seal, when they loosely gave their pledges at the last Election that they would do all in their power to do away with the residence qualification and the means limitation, would have got if it was known that, when the thing actually appeared in cold print, a man was going to get only l⅗d. a day extra? I wonder if they would have considered it a fair redemption of those promises? You cannot run away from Election pledges in this way. We have been reminded from the other side, as usual, that an opportunity was given to members of our party to carry out this reform. That is true, but we did not pledge ourselves, and try to buy votes at the Election by it, and then run away from it directly we got into power, and I hope we shall see an end to that loose promising at Elections, which is detrimental to the best interests of our country. I am very glad that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has withdrawn this Resolution. It was perfectly obvious, from the first, that it was futile to proceed, and I do not think the excuses he gave were quite worthy of him.

Major HORE BELISHA: The Government, having broken a pledge, seem now very anxious to do a deal. The hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. J. Robertson), inspired by an extraordinary sense of casuistry, said, "I have been in this game for many years." What game? The game of breaking pledges?

Mr. J. ROBERTSON: That was in reply to interruptions on the other side.
Those interruptions showed the way in which you are treated when you bring home to the Members on the other side the gross injustices inflicted by them on pre-War pensioners.

Major HORE-BELISHA: That is one of the illustrations of the casuistry of the hon. Member.

Earl WINTERTON: As the hon. Gentleman pointed rather definitely to me, may I say that I only interrupted because he was breaking all the Rules of the House by referring to us as "you" instead of "hon. Gentlemen"?

Mr. J. ROBERTSON: The hon. Gentleman exaggerates his importance in my eyes. I was not pointing at him.

Major HORE-BELISHA: The hon. Member a year ago spoke with very great fervour in favour of doing justice to these men, and removing every possible restriction. Having got into power on the pledge given, in consequence of my hon. Friend's Resolution, he turns round and says, "You cannot expect us to carry out this pledge; the other people did not do it."

Mr. ROBERTSON: It is within the recollection of the Committee that I never said anything of the kind. What I did say—and I hope the hon. Gentleman will be fair to me—was that you could not expect a Labour party in four months to sweep away all the results of bungling and pledge-making of the other side for many years past.

Major HORE-BELISHA: I did not expect the hon. Gentleman to do anything of the kind. I will put to him this direct question: Did he give this pledge? Did every single member of the Government give this pledge, not only to introduce this legislation, but to introduce it immediately? The question is one which brooks of no delay. My hon. Friend says he cannot, in five minutes, implement every pledge he has given. The point is: Has he any intention at all of implementing this pledge? These men are not living—they are dying. How long is he going to wait? The Financial Secretary is very eloquent on questions of finance. This is no question of finance; this is a question of honour. You encouraged the aspirations of these men. Every day the question has been asked in
this House in the present Parliament, When are you going to give the pensions that you promised? When are you going to implement those pledges? The only answer we could get was, that there was not time. These things should have been done in the winter, and now a great many of these men have perished. It has resulted in a, very great saving to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He comes down here and, with the utmost calmness, tells us that this is a financial question. Were the ranker officers a financial question? Were the police strikers a financial question?
I share the abhorrence of my hon. Friend who asked, Why is it given to a Socialist Government to break all these pledges? I find an explanation of it in a speech delivered by the Prime Minister at York, in which he said, never give a pledge, never say you are going to do anything, but within reason always keep people expecting that you are going to do something. That is the whole political philosophy of the Socialist Government, and it was supplemented by an expression of the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, who exclaimed to a sympathetic audience, "What a wonderful game we are playing!" It is a wonderful game, but this game is played with human stakes, and I demand justice to these men, not only because they are entitled to it, but because they were promised it. Two of these men in my constituency have committed suicide, waiting for these pensions that were promised. Everyone involved in this Bill is day after day asking, "When are we going to get these pensions? We are ailing, we are weak, and we want them." Is the Financial Secretary going to say that this is a pure question of finance? He can unveil War memorials, but these men are the real memorials to the greatness of this country, and you can surely spend a little money upon them.
The Financial Secretary, who drafts memoranda with the same fluency with which he speaks, has endeavoured to indicate to this Committee that he is granting vast increases to these people. He is doing nothing of the kind. What is he giving to these pensioners? For those who have a pension up to £25 a year, it is 20 per cent. increase, and nothing more. For those up to £50 a year, it is 15 per cent. increase, and
nothing more, and for those with less than £100 a year, it is 10 per cent. increase, and nothing more. Does he realise that he is endeavouring to fool this Committee? The man with a basic pension of £25 per annum, under the proposals of the Government, is going to receive five princely pounds a year. Are the pre-War pensioners, who are now living in such great numbers in the workhouses, going to be enabled to come out? Are they going to be in any better position as a result of getting £5 a year more? Is this the way the Financial Secretary carries out his pledges? Pensioners who get a basic pension of £50 a year are to have the princely increase of £7 annually, and those with £100, £10.
I say to the Committee they, the Government, are fooling these men. There is no pensions increase at all. The Government are giving with a miserly, niggardly hand, and they are deceiving the people who put them there. The hon. Gentleman, by his proposals, will not cam the gratitude of these men, but the contempt, which he richly deserves, of the whole country. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who put the pensioners in the workhouse?"] Who put them in the workhouse? This is a question of getting them out of the workhouse. Now is your opportunity. My hon. Friends are not going to get away with it in the country by saying, "We did not take these men out of the workhouse, but kept thorn there in order to say that the Conservative party put them there." Do they want to make capital of this kind out of this question? This is not a party question, but a question of doing justice to men who deserve justice, and have been promised justice. I have a letter in my pocket from the Home Secretary, in which he pledged himself to do all these things which the Financial Secretary has refused to do this afternoon. My hon. Friend who has just sat down gave a wonderful illustration, which should bring home to the imagination of the Committee what this really means. A man who receives 1s. pension now gets 1s. 1d. A man who gets 1s. 6d. pension is going to get 1s. 8⅖d. A man who has got 2s. 3d. pension is going to get 2d. increase, and a man who has 3s. is to get 3s. 3d.
These increases will not purchase cigarettes. These men are in the workhouse, and either this Bill means they are
coming out of it, or it is not worth passing into law. Why induce the Committee to believe, as the Financial Secretary does in his Memorandum, that it is not necessary, or that it would be inadvisable, to increase the pensions of those getting over £100 a year, because they would then be getting more than the others. He speaks in his Memorandum of bringing these men into line with the cost of living, which is now said to be 71 points above the pre-War figure. The object of this Bill is to do nothing of the kind, but to put these pre-War pensioners upon a level with the post-War pensioners, and, unless you are doing that, you are not doing justice at all. A pre-War pensioner, a private in the Army, gets 1s. 3d. maximum, whereas a post-War pensioner can get 2s. 7½d. A pre-War able-bodied seaman gets 1s. 2d., whereas a post-War pensioner, for exactly the same service, gets 3s. 6d. These men are in the evening of their days. Cannot you do them a little justice while there is yet time? I do plead with the Financial Secretary to consult his conscience and his honour in this matter. He has made certain concessions in regard to removing certain objectionable Clauses in the Bill. He says that it will no longer be necessary for the pensioner to reside in the British Isles. Well and good. But there are other things which have to be remedied in this Bill, and one of them concerns the widow, who has a child over 16 years of age. You can do justice very cheaply to her, and I do hope the Financial Secretary will give way on that as well. Another point is with regard to the age of widows, who must be 40 in order to get the increase, and the pensioner must be over 60 years old. I hope the Financial Secretary will promise to put those things right, now that he has the opportunity.
These men who are concerned, whose hopes have been buoyed up day after day as the result of the pledges given, have no other resources but their pension. What is the good of 10s. 6d. a week to a man nearly 70 years old? He simply cannot live on it. His pay has been entirely inadequate during the whole period, and if you are going to do anything for him, I do beg the Financial Secretary to do it with a generous hand. The evening of one's days should be the most beautiful period of the life of a man or a woman. The clouds have been hang-
ing over these people long enough, and I do ask the Financial Secretary, before we leave the Committee this evening, to do something to dispel those clouds, so that the setting sun reflect its peace and beauty in their eyes.

Captain BOWYER: I have listened to every speech made this afternoon, and, as some 15 or 20 hon. Members have joined in the Debate, it is not easy to avoid repeating certain things that have been said before. I regret very much that the Financial Secretary, who always speaks so admirably, should have spoken so early in the Debate, because, personally, I and I know a number of other Members are so keen on this matter that I see the danger of the Committee agreeing to what he has held out—[An HON. MEMBER: "Never!"]—and thus deprive themselves of any sort of opportunity of getting the means limit removed from the 1920 Act, or of getting other Amendments to that Act put into force which we desire, because it is perfectly true that if and when my hon. Friend does bring in the next Financial Resolution, we, on this side, cannot, nor can any private Member, move to increase the money, or move any Amendment which shall be held by you, Sir, to increase the charge upon the subject. Therefore, we are absolutely in the hands of the Government in this matter, and I do beg the Government not to limit what they say they will do in the matter of bringing in this new Financial Resolution, to the two matters of residence abroad, and changing "may" into "shall," but will give serious consideration as to whether, in fact, they cannot amend the 1920 Act so as to do away with the means limit. I do not want to bring any heat into this Debate. I regret really that this thing should not be looked upon as being above party politics.

Mr. ROBERTSON: Hear, hear!

Captain BOWYER: The hon. Gentleman who says "hear, hear" from the Front Government Bench makes it very difficult for me, because, of all the speeches that I have ever listened to coming from either the Front Government Bench or the Front Opposition Bench, his was the most antagonistic. But I feel I must, without bringing any party into this, stress the fact of the danger that I see the House now runs of accepting the proposal of the
Financial Secretary to bring in an amended Resolution, the danger of not getting really what in justice is due to these pre-War prisoners. May I take a case for the sake of argument which has not boon mentioned this afternoon—that of the pro-War teachers? I suppose that everybody will agree that the pre-War teacher was less well paid than either of the Services or the Civil Service. The case of man after man has come to my knowledge retiring upon a pension of £30 per year. Under the 1920 Act he gets an extra £15, that is £45 a year. I have got some figures about this—

Mr. SULLIVAN: On a point of Order. Is it not the fact that under the 1918 Act the local authority were empowered to put the figure up to £100?

Captain BOWYER: They were specifically excluded from the Fisher Act of 1918. I give the House the figure in order to show how the case is standing. There are 5,605, or there were on 31st March, 1923. In the last three years 1,435 have died. There is not one of those 5,005 pre-War teachers, pre-1919 teachers, who is not over 70 years old. Imagine their satisfaction to-morrow when they read what the Financial Secretary is going to do for them! Most of them will not come in at all under the amended Resolution. What they mostly want is the elimination of the means restriction. Indeed, let me go further and say what they really want is the elimination of Section 2 of the Act of 1920. The average length of service of these men is 40 years. Whether you take the case of the teachers or whether you take—which is oven more true in this respect—the case of the Army, the Navy, and the Police force, the very men who are concerned here are the men who have built up the Services, and are responsible in the main for the greatness of the particular Service to-day. The average salary enjoyed by these pre-War teachers, these 5,605 teachers, was £104. The average salary of those who came under the Fisher Act of 1918 was £255. I can leave it there, because it is less than half per cent. Prior to 1919 these men were getting less than half those who retired after the Fisher Act came into operation. Let me make one more point. The hon. Gentleman opposite on the Government Bench says that his party have not broken pledges. Let this be quite clear The
National Association of Retired Teachers took the precaution, before the last General Election, not only to state very clearly to every candidate who was standing for Parliament exactly what they wanted—and they will not be content with what the Financial Secretary has offered—but they have collected the answers from every quarter of the House. The hon. Gentleman who said that the Labour party has broken no pledges cannot remember what the case was that was put before the candidates by the pre-War teachers. The question was this:
Will you help to eliminate the means limit and to raise the pension of those who were pre-1919 teachers?
I will only trouble the House with three answers that were- given by right hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Front Bench. In the first place, there is the answer of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies. His reply was:
I desire to assure you that you may rely upon me doing everything possible to secure sympathetic consideration in the case of the old retired teachers' pensions. I realise they are quito inadequate in existing circumstances.
Before I read out the other two answers I have here—and I have got also in this document beside mo answers from Members on every side of the House—and if the Conservative party had given the pledges which they have given in this document and were going about to break those pledges, I should speak precisely in the same way as I am now speaking. I am quoting the pledges of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, because they and they alone have the power to move in the matter of the Financial Resolution, upon which they found their Bill, and from which the old age pensioners alone can expect justice. There is the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. He replied in this way—before he got in, and whilst he was fighting his election—
It is a matter to which many Members of the Labour party have given much attention, and the party, I know"—
He spoke not only for himself but his party—
will whole-heartedly support any effort made on the lines indicated.
Finally, there is the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. In reply, he said this:
The objects of the National Union of Retired Teachers have my cordial sympathy.
The memorial presented has the support of myself and of the Members of the Labour party.
If that be so, what answer is it to the National Association of Retired Teachers to say that you will merely bring in the two Amendments suggested in a new Financial Resolution to which the Financial Secretary has referred? It does not touch the fringe of the subject. I for one refuse in this instance to be bound by anything that my right hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir L. Worthington-Evans) said in his speech. He was not talking for me on that occasion. I want to see the whole means limit eliminated, and if the Financial Secretary says we cannot afford it, I cannot consider that a proper answer to me. How can he dare say so? How can he say that he cannot afford the cost? How much money which would come into the State coffers is he sacrificing by the repeal of the McKenna Duties? Suggestions were asked recently as to how money was to be found. This is a reasonable suggestion, and I put it forward, as to how the money is to be found. The McKenna Duties money will actually come in if it is only allowed to come in by a continuation of the duties, and there you will have ample money to do practically the whole thing; to put right this very just grievance of men, most of whom are over 70 years of age, and, I suppose, men most of whom can look forward to not very many more years, as they have already outdistanced the ordinary span of life. If the only answer to them is that fresh legislation in the future is to be brought in I think they will be very disappointed to-morrow. I do beg the House not to be too satisfied, whilst thankful to the hon. Gentleman for what he is going to do. I do beg the House not to be satisfied for that, and I for one should like to see the Government pledged to remove the means limit and thoroughly to amend the Act of 1920.

Mr. HOPE SIMPSON: Their was one point made by an hon. Gentleman opposite in regard to the police. There is a second exception, the age-limit exception, which excludes all men over 60 years, and hits the police force very hard indeed. It is difficult to understand why the exception should be made. I suppose that the assumption was that a
man below 60 would be able to find some work to eke out his old age pension. As a matter of fact, men between 50 and 60 find it difficult to obtain any work, and most of these men will be found living on their pension. In their case this disability has entirely prevented the growth of a large increase of police pension since 1920, and I would urge the hon. Gentleman, specially on behalf of these men, that this age limit should be removed, and all police pensioners should obtain the benefit which other pensioners will obtain under the Resolution.

Mr. MITCHELL BANKS: I shall occupy a very few minutes of the Committee, but I rise in fulfilment of one of these pledges of which we have heard so much in the course of the Debate. Obviously, there can be only one honourable course for any man who is under a pledge, and that is to redeem it at the first possible opportunity. It seems to me that the discussions in this House have lately developed into a kind of bickering about the honour of Members and the honour of parties, illuminated by that most primitive form, already well-known to us in our schooldays, as tu quoque. I am interested in regard to the removal of the means limit in regard to old age pensions. I know quite well that when first elected a Member of this House I secured a certain number of votes by giving on that question an unconditional pledge. When the Motion was brought forward in, I think, December, 1922, by hon. Members opposite, although it was not, perhaps, a singularly agreeable thing for any Member to do, I felt I had no other course to pursue but to go into the Lobby with hon. Members opposite, and keep company with some other members of my own party who were under similar obligations. Therefore, these rebukes and counter-rebukes leave me cold. Although that is the line I have had to pursue, I do not feel there is anything dishonourable about the position of my leaders, or other members of the Conservative party, because, as a party, we were not pledged on that occasion, and the party did not come into power in consequence of any pledges on the subject. That is what constitutes the difference between Members on this side and hon. Members opposite.
7.0 P.M.
For hon. Members opposite have been watching the Coalition Government and the Conservative Government, and whenever either of those Governments have to refuse some Motion upon the score of expenditure or finance, we have been treated to derision and insult. We have always been told, "See what we will do when we come into power; we will find the money that you are too mean to provide," The party has been four months in power. We want to be reasonable in the matter; some of us are reasonable. We know that a certain time must elapse, that is to say Parliamentary time, before they can deal with many questions which they, no less than ourselves, sincerely have at heart. Had it been necessary for this particular Resolution to have been delayed for four months, or it might be for six or seven months, we should not have complained; but the point about it is that whenever some topic does come up in this House to which they are strictly bound it is not a question of breaking pledges that is of moment for us, but to see that they keep them. There is only one other point I wish to deal with. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, if I construed him aright, argued, as a reason, that there was some more ambitious and general scheme of legislation with which they were in gestation. I should have thought that was exactly the reason why they should have taken the step we indicated this afternoon. Supposing they had not got any such general scheme in their minds, even if we said to them, "Please remove this limit," it would have been a valid retort to say, "Sorry, we cannot do that, because if we do it to any one class all classes will come forward with similar demands." But if you are going to do it to all pensioners, since the whole includes the part, why not make a beginning with the very deserving class we are discussing this afternoon? We do not feel, when we see an opportunity of geting something, on the instant, too much confidence in their promise of what they propose to do in the future.

Mr. SULLIVAN: I had no wish to take part in the Debate, because I had the idea that the Government themselves are not responsible for the methods. I would like to see the means of disqualification
taken away, but I regret very much the tone that has entered into the discussion. Hon. Members seem to think that the Government have to pay all the money that they are anxious to vote. I want to remind them that the 1920 Act has not been carried out by a very big number of local authorities yet. In connection with the teaching profession, local authorities had certain power. I believe in some cases they adopted that power. The correction I tried to make a short time ago dealt with the County of Lanark. I was on the education authority, and we made the pensions of the old teachers who had retired up to £100. We had the power apparently, and we did it; and there are so many heart-rending cases, as quoted here, that this difficulty will still arise with public authorities who refuse to carry out their powers. I think the same will apply to police pensions. Half of the money is supplied by the State and half by the rates. If hon. Members opposite care to make it compulsory on education authorities, and on public authorities to pay whatever is passed here, I personally have no objection, but they will be up against this difficulty, that it is mainly their supporters on public authorities who refuse to carry it out. These people maintain that if they are to find the money they have the right to say how the money is to be spent.
Some help is being given up to £100. I know that hon. Members would like very well to get that amount exceeded, but I can assure them that among the people that we represent they consider a pensioner with £100 as fairly well off. It may be that in other ranks they are much better paid. I was listening very carefully to the Debate to-night, and it reminded me of the Debate we had a year ago when we tried to take away the means disqualification ill connection with old age pensions. It will be remembered that, to get a pension at 70, they must have had no savings and have made no provision for a rainy day. Hon. Members opposite walked into the Lobby against that proposal. When that comes up, the probability is that their party will be tested again. I know—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Entwistle): The hon. Member must address the Chair. He had better keep to the subject of this Resolution.

Mr. SULLIVAN: I know that there is always this difference, that the Conservative party, or even the Liberal party in Opposition, is much more advanced than in power, and they have an opportunity to-night, and they have taken full advantage of it. I think the Government should do away with the means disqualification and the restriction as to where the pensioner should live, because, after all, if we are going to give a pension, we have no right to hedge it round with conditions of that kind.

Mr. GRAHAM: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Captain BENN: I only wanted to say, to avoid future misunderstandings, that there is no pledge given by many of my hon. Friends not to criticise the amended form of the Resolution when the hon. Gentleman brings it forward. He has done what was obviously right in with drawing a Resolution to which many Members in all parts took exception, and he has undertaken to bring in a Resolution in an amended form. But he added rather ominous words, that when such amended Resolution is introduced, it will be passed with small discussion. There is no definite pledge on that point.

Sir J. DAVIDSON: When will he bring in this Resolution?

Mr. GRAHAM: I cannot bind myself to a day. It will be brought in without any delay; almost at once.

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: If the means limit is abolished, it will amount to nearly £1,000,000. Can my hon. Friend show that in a case of such importance the nation cannot pay £1,000,000? If he cannot, he must know where he can find the money. The old age pensioners will not be satisfied unless the means limit be removed. Any Resolution brought in which does not abolish that limit will be illusory, most unsatisfactory, and a fraud on the old people.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether he is going to consider the Resolution in the light of all the matters which have been brought up in the Debate, particularly with a view to increasing the amounts that will be payable, because a great many people are very anxious about this, and would like to know what action he will take?

Lieut.-Colonel JOHN WARD: I would just like to put one question to the hon. Gentleman opposite relating to this Resolution before it is withdrawn. It is not because I wish to delay the business of the Committee. I should like to know, seeing that this Resolution increases the pensions dating from a certain date, that owing to the bungling of the Treasury the pensioners themselves will not lose as a result of this bungling of the Treasury or someone connected with this Resolution. I hope, whatever is decided, it will date from the date of this Resolution, even if the amended Resolution is brought in at a much later date. I am under the impression that we ought to get a retrospective application at least to the date in the present Resolution. I have a labour opponent in my constituency, and I have collected a great many of the addresses of the Labour men all over the country, and I do not think there is scarcely one who did not recommend the removal of the means' disability in the Old Age Pensions. Therefore, if the Front Bench are giving any general expression of the opinions of their friends behind them, it is certain that that will be included in any pension system. I take it the Government will agree to carry out the generally expressed desire of their own friends, not merely in this House but in the country. I am anxious to know whether it will be understood that by allowing this Resolution to be withdrawn those who would have got an increase of pension from a certain date stated in the Resolution will not have their pension order fixed back, merely because of a mistake or a failure to grasp the mentality of this House for the moment by the Government.

Mr. GRAHAM: In reply to the two hon. Members who have raised questions as regards the pledge which I gave this afternoon, that would cover only two points. I cannot go beyond the pledge in reply to the two points I have given. As regards the question raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Stoke (Lieut.-Colonel J. Ward), let me assure him that the few days' delay in getting the Resolution through will not in any way prejudice the people affected. A retrospective effect will be given to July, 1923.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. W. Graham.]

The CHAIRMAN: accordingly left the Chair.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Patrick Hastings): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill is in practically identical form with the Bill which has already passed through all its stages in another place, and received a Second Heading in this House on 27th July last year. Upon that occasion there was a substantial Debate upon the question of the detention or the alteration of the detention of jury under the existing system. I propose to say a few words about Clause 1, which deals with the power to dispense with the holding of the Assizes in places where they are considered to be unnecessary, and Clause 2 which deals with the question of juries. I think the other Clauses in the Bill will meet with a little criticism, but if any points are raised I should imagine the House will think it desirable that they should be discussed in Committee.
It is desirable that I should say a few words in explanation of the first Clause. It has been the practice from time immemorial that there should be Assizes held all over the country, over which the King's Judges preside in the various towns of the counties. On many occasions at a circuit town the Judge and his retinue have arrived and there has been no work whatsoever for the Judge to do. The practice is known to hon. Members of presenting to the Judge a pair of white gloves, indicating that there are no persons there to be tried. This causes a great amount of unnecessary expense and it has been recommended that it might be possible to abolish altogether Assizes at certain places. That was thought, however, to be too drastic and this Clause gives to the Lord Chief Justice from time to time power to say that no Assizes shall be held in a particular town if there be no work there, or if the work appears to him to be so small as not to be worth the expense. Some hon. Members seem to think that
that would give the right to some ill-disposed to prevent a person from having his case tried at the Assizes, but that is based upon a mis-reading of the Clause, because the only persons who could achieve that would be those who could show that there would be no prosecutions and no trials at this particular assize town. If there is any question arising on this point I think it is one which might very well be discussed in Committee upstairs.
The substantial point relates to the question of juries. This is a question which affects not only lawyers but other persons as well, and I just want to remind those who are not members of my profession what the position is with regard to juries. In the year 1873 the question of the rights of litigants to juries was regulated by Rules and Orders of the Supreme Court. Those Rules and Orders were well known to practitioners, and they gave a very great protection to litigants of all sorts in litigation in the High Courts of Justice. When the War came, there were many severe restrictions placed upon the right of trial by jury by Acts passed in 1918 and 1920. In my view, and in the view of many practitioners, the system under the Act of 1920 was eminently unsatisfactory.
The object of this Bill, which is in this respect in the same form as it was introduced by my predecessor last year, is to restore the position of litigants with regard to jury to practically the same as it has been since 1873. I do not think that this Bill as drafted puts the litigant in as good a position as he was in in 1873. I noticed, in looking up the account of the Second Reading of a similar Bill, that the then Attorney-General, when faced with that proposition, said that if anybody was able to satisfy the Committee upstairs that the condition of affairs under his Bill was not an improvement on what the position then was under the Act of 1920, he would submit it to a free vote of the Committee upstairs as to whether paragraph (d) should be allowed to stand.
That was obviously unsatisfactory to a large number of hon. Members, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spenn Valley (Sir J. Simon) asked specifically whether the Attorney-General could see his way to undertake that in Committee the question of restoring the
right of trial by jury as it was before the War should be determined without putting on the Government Whips. The then Attorney-General said he could not give that pledge, but I am prepared and anxious to give it myself, because I am anxious that the full right of trial by jury in the fullest form should be given under this Bill to every litigant in the High Court. The only reason why paragraph (d) of Clause 2 was not actually taken out of the Bill is, that I would like to leave it for discussion in Committee Upstairs, so as to allow practically every Member of the House who belongs to the legal profession to bring forward cases of hardship to litigants which have happened in their experience, where it can be shown that the Judge has not been able to get rid of the jury when it has been sworn through some action which is taking up the time of the Court.
Under those conditions the jury are naturally anxious to be discharged. I have a case in mind where, owing to the absence of one of the parties to the litigation, the Judge held that he had no power to discharge the jury, and they were detained for a considerable time and great expense was involved. It occurred to me that there might be some changes which hon. Members who are members of the legal profession may want to suggest with a view of putting in some additional safeguards to those which are at present contained in the Act of 1873. Therefore I am prepared either to accept Amendments, or to leave to the absolutely free vote of the Committee any suggestion which may appear to the Committee to be desirable in preference to paragraph (d), or I should be willing to allow it to be decided by a vote of the House.
What I desire to impress upon the House is that there really is no necessity to urge in any form the abolition of paragraph (d). It is the intention of paragraph (d) to put back the litigant into as good a position as he was in before. I suggest that in Committee hon. Members should give their experience on this point, and if it is found necessary I should not have the slightest objection to paragraph (d) being taken out. I can assure hon. Members that they will have no cause to complain if they leave these matters to be discussed during the Committee stage.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I beg to move to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which fails to restore the right of trial by jury as it was before the War.
I am in a difficulty after the extraordinary speech which has just been made by the Attorney-General. He stated just now that he feared some criticism might be made that the Government had not stated their intentions in regard to this Bill, and that he might be blamed for not doing so. That is certainly my position. The Attorney-General brought forward the County Courts Bill, which might impose further charges upon people who desired to bring workmen's compensation cases into Court. He said that he did not mean to do that, and when the Measure came before the Committee he would be prepared to make a considerable alteration. There seems to be a sort of detachment of the Attorney-General from the Bills he introduces. What does he really mean and what are the Government going to do with reference to this particular matter? I regard it, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) does, as a matter of principle, and not as a matter to be decided upon in Committee.
I want to-day, if I can, to get from the Attorney-General something plain and straightforward with reference to this matter. He is very vague about what the Government are really going to do. On the one hand he says he is in favour of giving the fullest right of trial by jury to every litigant, and then, on the other hand, he implies that he has some exception in his mind for dealing with some extraordinary case in which, apparently, he was interested, and in which, because one of the parties was absent, they could not dispense with a jury. It was something like the illustration given to us by the late Attorney-General on the Second Reading of this Bill in the last House, when he mentioned some extraordinary case, in which also he was engaged, having to do with some matter affecting the Spanish law, and he gave that case as an illustration why this Clause should be preserved, because, apparently, the jury were to come to a decision as to what
was the Spanish law on the subject. The more I contemplate these exceptional cases that are brought forward to bolster up this Clause, the less confident I feel in accepting such statements.
I propose to press this Amendment in order that we may have a definite statement, apart from exceptions and all the rest of it. It is very dangerous to bring in any question of exception in this matter, and we should have it definitely accepted by the Government that the people of this country are to have the same rights of trial by jury as they had before the War. The Attorney-General passed over very lightly indeed the criticisms that have been made by the Court of Appeal on the extraordinary position in which litigants in this country are at the present moment, and one of the reasons why we should give proper attention to the Second Reading of this Bill is that undoubtedly the position in which we find ourselves to-day is largely due to the lack of time and the scamping methods adopted when the original Act was passed. On that occasion the Bill was, I think, reached at 3 o'clock in the morning, the Attorney-General of that day spoke for about five minutes, it was never stated to the House that they were really fundamentally interfering with the rights as to trial by jury, and this House passed that Bill without really having the matter properly explained to it. In the result, according to the judgment of the Court of Appeal, this House, quite unknown to itself, had fundamentally destroyed the right of trial by jury which had been enjoyed in this country for many hundreds of years.
Particular criticism was passed on that occasion by the Lords Justices because in certain cases the question ae to whether a man should have the right of trial by jury was left to the decision of the High Court Judge. In the Act of 1920 power was given that, if the Judge thought the case could not be as conveniently tried with a jury as without, he could come to a certain decision. What is the Attorney-General proposing to the House to do—because we really must take his own proposal? He is only suggesting the reversal of this, perhaps in rather better words, but, as I venture to say, in words just as inconvenient and just as open to criticism. He is suggesting that the Judge should address himself to another question, that
is to say, whether the case is one in regard to which the Judge is satisfied that it is more fit to be tried without a jury. I think that that is equally open to the criticism which Lord Justice Bankes made on the original wording. Lord Justice Bankes said that it was most objectionable to leave this matter to what is practically the uncontrolled discretion of a Judge upon a question upon which individual opinion may so widely differ, and to leave it without any indication of the matters which should be taken into consideration in arriving at a decision.
I venture to say again that the form of words which the Attorney-General now proposes is open to the same grave objection which was advanced by the Court of Appeal, and we find ourselves in the extraordinary position that it is suggested, by the Bill introduced by the Attorney-General, that in, for instance, a breach of promise case, a plaintiff or defendant can have a jury as of right, while if a man gets run down in a street accident he does not have a jury as of right, and has to go, if necessity arises—I do not suppose that it would happen very often—to a Judge to decide whether his case shall be tried by a jury or not. Again, there might be a slander action in which a plaintiff or defendant could have a jury as of right, while if, say, a dentist were sued for professional negligence, the plaintiff or defendant would have to go to a Judge in the last resort to decide whether there should be a jury or not. I cannot understand how an Attorney-General in a Labour Government could bring forward such a proposal, depriving the litigants of this country of the right of trial by jury, and it is an extraordinary thing to me, especially after what the Labour party said when this matter came last before the House.
On that occasion the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster got up and said that the Labour party were wholeheartedly with the opposition brought forward to this Bill, and many hon. Members will recollect that on that occasion a number of us, irrespective of any personal or party political views, strongly opposed this proposal, as we are doing to-day. The present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that the Labour party were certainly with us in that, and yet to-day we find the Attorney-General bringing in the same Clause and
making the same attempt to deprive the subjects of this country of trial by jury. On that occasion also the present President of the Board of Trade rose from his seat and said that this proposal might strike a blow, which might be a very serious one, at the right of a litigant to trial by jury, and I believe that all the Labour Members present, including the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the Home Secretary, and the present Chief Whip, went into the Lobby in support of the contention that we are making to-day. Yet we find the Attorney-General, apparently with very little consideration at all, introducing this Bill in exactly the same form, and, in addition, making some most indefinite proposals to the House as to what shall be done in Committee.
I want the House on this occasion definitely to take the stand which I suggested it should take on the last occasion, and assert that the litigants of this country should have the same right to trial by jury as they had before the War. I do not want the Attorney-General, when we get into Committee, to say, "Oh, well, I raised the point about the case I was in, and how we could not get rid of the jury on that occasion, and, therefore, I must put in & Clause to safeguard an exception of that kind." We have got on very well in this country under the old system, in spite of these extraordinary cases in which, apparently, various legal Members have been engaged. We have got on very well, indeed, without any exceptions at all. Generally, by the common sense of the parties and by arrangement with counsel, these difficulties have been got rid of, and, therefore, I hope we are not going to have any attempt made, at the suggestion of the Attorney-General, to weaken the present position. I want a definite assurance from him, before these proceedings close, that we shall have exactly the same right to trial by jury in this country as we had before the War. I think it is very necessary, in view of the attitude which the Attorney-General has adopted, that he should be perfectly explicit, without any qualifications of the kind he has indicated.
I should like, if I may, also to refer to the other matter to which the Attorney-General has referred, namely, the Clause which gives power to dispense with the
holding of Assizes in places where they are unnecessary. It is perfectly true, as the Attorney-General has said, that there is a great waste of judicial time, and, no doubt, considerable waste of money, in Judges having to go down to various towns where there is no business; and we do read, as he says, of a pair of white gloves being given to the presiding Judge as an indication of the good order of the community in that particular part of the country. But there is something more to be said than that for the Judges going to Assizes. It is a good thing to emphasise occasionally the importance of a proper and efficient manner of carrying out judicial work in local administration, and I particularly want the Attorney-General, if he will, to explain still further what is meant by saying that in the event of there being
no substantial amount of business to be transacted at the Assizes,
the Lord Chief Justice, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, can direct that Assizes shall not on the occasion of that circuit be held at that place. Does it mean, for instance, that, if there is an important criminal case in that particular locality, but only one, then the Assizes need not be held? In any event I would suggest that it would give a certain amount of confidence in local administration if in this matter, and in one or two others arising out of this Bill, there were an Advisory Committee which would act in conjunction with the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice in that connection.
There are just two minor points to which I want to refer, which have been put forward by various law societies up and down the country. I think we shall be able to deal with them more effectively in Committee, but they do raise a very curious position which still exists now in this country, namely, that the procedure is different in the Principal Probate Registry, and under lunacy administration and matters of that kind. A good many law societies have put forward the view that, when we come to consider this Bill, at any rate in Committee, there is no reason why the practice of the Courts should not be made the same all through, and that, instead of the complicated differences which arise in various Courts, the practice should at any rate be made the same. There is a further point of
that kind which I want to put to the Attorney-General, namely, the contention that the Principal Probate Registry should now, under this Bill, be put under the same regime as any other branch of the High Court. It is very difficult to understand why that has not been done, and it is suggested that, under Clause 12 of the Bill which deals with the rules of the Supreme Court, the same Committee should have power to make the rules regulating lunacy, divorce, and contentious probate matters. That, perhaps, is a matter which could more properly be discussed in Committee, but I hope the Attorney-General, when he comes to reply, will say that he is open to consider these points, because I think a great deal of useful work could be done in that connection, and probably a good deal of money saved to litigants.
Our main contention, however, as appears from this Amendment, is that on the occasion of the Second Reading of this Bill we must take an important principle of this kind without any qualification or equivocation, and we want the Attorney-General definitely to assert that he himself in Committee will introduce a Clause which will restore the right of trial by jury as it was before the War. It would have been much more convenient had the Attorney-General, when he introduced this Bill, put the Clause into the Bill, so that we- should have had an opportunity of criticising it and saying what should be done. I remember very well during the course of the last Debate, one of the contentions put forward by those who did not want to restore the right of trial by jury as it was before the War was that it was impossible to draft such a Clause. I never held that view, but it certainly would have been much better if the Attorney-General had done that. I hope we shall, as the result of this Amendment, get a straightforward statement from the Attorney-General upon a matter which not only affects lawyers but the whole community, and which, I believe, is a very necessary part of the administration of justice upon which this country has been built up.

Mr. HARNEY: I beg to second the Amendment.
I find myself rather paralysed having regard to the speech of the Attorney-General, because in one sense he has conceded all that the Mover and
myself desire, but I feel that we are entitled to something very much more definite than we have had from him. After all, it is scarcely a satisfactory thing that the Attorney-General should father this Bill the same as the one introduced in the last Parliament, and then say, "I differ from it to the extent of this Amendment, but I will concede that difference in Committee." We want him to concede it now. We want to be quite sure that the pre-War conditions as regards trial by jury will be restored, and in order that there may be no mistake as to the way this Bill differs from the pre-War conditions I think it necessary to make a few observations. In the first place, although the Attorney-General quite openly tells us it does not restore pre-War conditions, I find the Lord Chancellor in introducing the Bill said:
This Bill proposes and does restore the right of the British subject to be tried by jury as he possessed it before the War.
When two lawyers of the eminence of the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General differ it is as well that the House should know the position. For many hundreds of years, a litigant was bound to have his case tried by a jury.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am sure the hon. Member would not wish to mislead the House, and it is only fair that I should read what the Lord Chancellor said:
This Bill proposes to restore the right of the British subject to be tried by a jury as he possessed it before the War, and the only alteration is that almost of necessity a power is given to the Judge to say that the case is one which is of a nature quite unfitted to allow trial by a jury.
To say that I disagree with the Noble Lord is quite inaccurate. I agree entirely.

Mr. HARNEY: I speak in the hearing of some lawyers, and, therefore, I think it advisable to point this out. The Lord Chancellor starts off by saying that the object of the Bill was to restore the right to trial by jury as we possessed it before the War. He goes on to say:
The only alteration is that almost of necessity a power is given to the Judge to say that the case is one which is of a nature quite unfitted to allow trial by jury; just such a case, for example, as one depending on intricate accounts being taken.
That was the law before the War. The Lord Chancellor therefore says, "The object of the Bill is to restore the pre-War
condition with an alteration that makes it, when you look at it, precisely the same as the pre-War condition." The first invasion made upon the general right to trial by jury was by the Common Law Procedure Act of 50 years ago, and all that did was to stereotype the practice which had grown up of excluding from trial by jury questions of account in Chancery actions, Admiralty actions, and actions involving prolonged examination of documents, which the convenience of parties had long made it a practice not to have tried by jury. But all common law actions were to be tried by jury. Then you had the Judicature Act passed 20 years afterwards. The only difference that made was that it provided for a Rules Committee, which had to do with all questions of procedure, including such matters as the mode of trial, and these were statutory rules to be laid on the Table of the House. But though there have been three, four or five sets of these rules made, in none of them was any attempt made really to curtail the right of trial by jury further than it had been by the Common Law Procedure Act. These rules made one curious distinction. They said that actions involving personal character, actions of defamation, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, seduction and breach of promise were, as matters of course, put into the jury list. All other Common Law actions could be put into the jury list upon application. The only difference was that in the one class of action you got a jury without the asking, and in the other class you got a jury for the asking, so there was really no distinction. That was absolutely the law before the Juries Act of 1918. Every Common Law litigant was entitled as a right to have his case tried by a jury. The shortage brought about by the war in 1918 induced Parliament to make what it regarded as a very drastic change, and a change which ought not to endure, because it took care to express in the Act of Parliament itself what its intention was:
This Act shall have effect during the continuance- of the present War and for a period of six months afterwards.
The War came to an end, and the period of six months came to an end, and the ordinary course would have been to allow this emergency Measure to lapse and
automatically bring back pre-War conditions. Instead of that there was introduced into the House of Lords a Bill called the Administration of Justice Bill, which purported affirmatively to do what would have been better done, as it happens, negatively. They dealt with this question of juries and the Lord Chancellor when introducing it said, "It is merely a formal matter, and it restores pre-War conditions." There was a column and a half or two columns given to the Debate in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I think only a few inches to his question of juries. It came to this House, and there was no Debate at all here. It was introduced at an early hour of the morning and passed through. It was thought then by the lay public that juries had been restored, but they found out their mistake in the practice of the Courts, and ultimately the whole matter came up for consideration at the trial of an action in 1922. I had better read the Judge's exact words. Lord Justice Bankes said:
What was once an undoubted right, and in the opinion of many persons a most valuable right, has been eaten into until at last, by the recently issued provisional rules proposed to be made permanent, it has been entirely taken away. It is in the hope that on further consideration of the matter the right may be restored and the necessary limitations of the right clearly defined that I am calling attention to this.
He put it more plainly later on:
The Juries Act of 1918 and the rules consequent thereon were a purely temporary war Measure and need not be referred to. The Administration of Justice Act, 1920, contains a provision as to trial by jury which came into operation on the date when the Juries Act of 1918 expired, namely, on 1st March of the present year. Trial by jury is now abolished.
It was on account of that case that the Administration of Justice Act was introduced. We want to know, now that it is clearly conceded that this Bill does not restore the pre-War conditions, whether they are to be restored. If not, we want to know why not. The Attorney-General tells us that he is in favour of the view-that I am putting forward, that it should be restored, but he has not told us that he will undertake to restore it if we agree to pass the Bill. I press this Motion, and I think we ought to persist in it unless we get an undertaking that here and now the pre-War right to trial by jury will be restored.

8.0. P.M.

Sir THOMAS INSKIP: This subject is one which naturally interests lawyers, but
it probably also ought to interest the subject who is not a lawyer, and it is a remarkable testimony to the confidence which the public place in lawyers that they should, generally speaking, leave lawyers in the House to settle the manner ire which their litigation shall be decided in the Courts. There are a few lawyers present, and no doubt we shall have the advantage of bearing their opinion. The Bill really contains only one controversial Clause, although opinions may differ on some other small points. It is a Clause upon which I have had an opportunity of expressing my opinion in a former Parliament, and although I have a position now of greater freedom, I retain that opinion. I think that it is not very different from that of the Lord Chancellor in the words with which he commended the Bill in another place. I agree with the Attorney-General that the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Harney) did not quite give the sense of the advice which the Lord Chancellor gave, but at the same time I think the Lord Chancellor commended the Bill as it is drawn and as it is presented to the House to-day, whereas, as I understand the learned Attorney-General, he rather favours the course which my hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir Kingsley Wood) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Smith Shields (Mr. Harney) would favour, namely, the amendment of Clause 2, so as to effect what is generally described as restoring the right of trial by jury as it existed before the War. It is desirable that we should all understand a little more what this Bill really does, and the circumstances in which it is presented to the House. I am not sure it was correct to say, as my hon. and learned Friend who last spoke said, that it was introduced in consequence of the observations of Lord Justice Bankes. I think the matter had been under consideration before Lord Justice Bankes made those observations. Everything that Lord Justice Bankes said is entitled to, and would receive, the respect of this House, and from me personally he is entitled to almost filial respect, as he is one to whom I owe so much; but it was under consideration before that judgment was given. The position is this: that in 1918, owing entirely to the exigencies of the War, the right to trial by jury, except in
a few particular cases, was practically abolished. In 1920 the right to trial by jury was extended, but certainly to nothing like the same extent as it existed before the War. In 1923 this Bill was introduced in the same form as it is today, and it is now re-introduced. It will have the effect, as the Lord Chancellor has said, with a slight alteration, of practically restoring the pre-War right.
My opinion is, with all respect to the learned Attorney-General to whom I should naturally defer, that the Lord Chancellor was right in the advice which he gave, and it would be well if the Government adhered to the Bill in its present form. For this reason: Everybody who is acquainted with the Courts knows that cases do arise which have been ordered to be tried by a jury in which, as the parties and tribunal discover, it is almost impossible that the jury shall give it proper consideration. It is not only the cases that arise on the investigation of intricate accounts, but cases possibly in which plans are involved, such a case as might arise if there were a question of trespass in a mine, where the working plans of a colliery would have to be handed backwards and forwards from counsel to jury, and jury to Judge, and back again; or questions in which documents of one sort or another had to be perused, and the precise effect of the documents retained in the memory of the jury, who naturally would find it more difficult to follow the documents than would the learned Judge who had been provided with them. Cases of that sort before the War might be ordered to be tried by a jury, by a Master upon the application of one of the parties to the litigation, and it often turned out that such cases as that proved to be entirely unsuitable for trial by jury. Is injustice done to any litigant, if it is decided at the beginning, as it often is decided at the end, that trial shall be by the jury alone? I venture to think that is the only amendment, and it is an improvement on the old practice which this Bill makes so far as trial by jury is concerned. The learned Attorney-General suggested that my right hon. Friend the Member for Marylebone (Sir D. Hogg), the late Attorney-General, gave a pledge that the matter should be left to a free vote of the House as to whether paragraph (d) should be included in the Bill or not.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not think that is quite so.

Sir T. INSKIP: I do not think it is. I do not think that is quite what the late learned Attorney-General did. The late Attorney-General was defending the Bill as it was drawn, and saying it was an extension of the 1920 Act. Hon. Members in all parts of the House criticised the Bill. He thereupon said that if the Committee, on a free vote, objected to this provision in the Bill, he would agree to it going out. But, as some hon. Members have failed to perceive—it was very well-known, of course, to the late Attorney-General, and he explained it to the House very clearly, as he would—the effects of excluding the paragraph would be to leave the matter controlled by the 1920 Act, and, therefore, would have a contrary effect to that which most hon. Members desired. He declined to give the pledge as the Attorney-General has now explained, and to say that he would leave it to the free vote of the House to say whether the precise pre-War practice would be restored. I hope I have correctly represented the late Attorney-General as to what he did and did not promise to the House.
The only question of substance is whether it is not desirable to give the Judge the power which paragraph (d) of Clause 2 of the Bill gives. Hon. Members will notice that the first three paragraphs of this Clause deal with purely non-controversial points. They say that in cases assigned to the Chancery Division there should be no jury unless a Judge otherwise decides, and everybody, both lawyer and layman, will appreciate that causes assigned to the Chancery Division are not fit to be tried by a jury in 99 cases out of 100. The next provision is that the Court may order a trial without a jury of any cause which immediately before the commencement of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1873, could without the consent of the parties have been tried without a jury. Such cases as occur in Admiralty Division, with assessors, and cases which involve examination of accounts and so on. We all agree about that. The next provision is that in certain cases, with which we are all familiar, which interest the public, and with which the public are most familiar, cases of libel, slander, false imprisonment, seduction, and matters of that sort, there
should be a right to trial by jury, and on the application of either of the parties to the litigation. We all agree about that. Next comes paragraph (d), which the Attorney-General says he will be quite prepared to have excised from the Bill in Committee, if the Committee is of that opinion. That Clause provides, that in any case not covered by the three paragraphs to which I have referred, where an order has been made that it should be tried with a jury, the Judge may order, notwithstanding the previous order, that it should be tried without a jury if he thinks it be more fit that it should be tried without a jury.
The House will notice, what is familiar to every practitioner in Chambers, that the expression "a Court or Judge" is used in one part of the Clause and in another the expression used is "the Judge." "The Court or Judge" means—and I am sure hon. Members who are not lawyers will forgive this somewhat technical dissertation—means a Master. "The Judge" means what it says, the Judge. Therefore, it is only an order that may be made by a Judge, so that this paragraph (d) provides that, notwithstanding an order having been made—perhaps on incomplete information at an early stage of the case—that it is a case to be tried by a jury, the Judge may, if he thinks it is more fit to be tried without a jury, order it so to be tried. The advantage of that is that parties who may prepare a case to be tried without a jury and may come to trial, will only have the expense of one trial, subject, of course, to appeal. Whereas, if the case is ordered to be tried and continues to be tried before a jury, and the jury and everybody say the jury is unfit to try the case, the jury may then be dispensed with, with the result that sometimes the matter is forced to a reference by another tribunal altogether, and the costs of the parties are increased, and no advantage is secured. This Bill makes this very small Amendment which I have tried, I hope successfully, to explain to the House, and which I hope the House will think is an improvement of the law as it stood before the War. It is really the only alteration which detracts in any way at all from the right of litigants to trial to a trial by jury.
The learned Attorney-General has suggested that it would be quite easy in Committee to leave out paragraph (d).
I suggest to him that that would not do at all. You cannot leave out paragraph (d), because then no provision will be made at all for any of the cases which are not covered by paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), and I am sure it is only the learned Attorney-General's desire to be brief and clear, that led him perhaps into a mere inadvertence for the moment. What is perhaps intended is that, in Committee, hon. Members shall move Amendments which will alter paragraph (d) substantially, and give the same unrestricted right to trial by jury, to use the learned Attorney-General's words, which every litigant shall be entitled to have. I think it would be found very difficult indeed to put any such provision as that into this Bill. What you will have to do is to leave the matter to be dealt with as it was dealt with before 1918, namely, by the Rules Committee, which is composed of many learned Judges and other persons appointed by the Lord Chancellor. Therefore this House will not be able to deal with the matter in this Bill. This is probably a convenient time for the question of principle to be decided, and I should have thought a more convenient time to decide it than possibly in Committee, where there might not be an attendance of such experts as my right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) who spoke on this question in 1923, and many hon. Members whom I see around me.
My own opinion is what I have expressed to-day. It is the opinion I held in 1923, and is an entirely unprejudiced one. I arrived at it as the result of greater observation and inquiry than I had previously been able to give to the matter. I am probably the only Member in this House who was present in the House on the occasion at about half-past one in the morning, in 1920, when the present Lord Chief Justice introduced the Bill which did cut down the right to trial by jury, and I am entitled to say that I expressed then in a sentence or two a grave doubt as to whether it was right to restrict trial by jury. I still adhere to that opinion. I hope that the learned Attorney-General will feel, on consideration, that the Lord Chancellor's opinion is probably the right one. The Bill went through unamended in another place in this respect, and with all deference to the Member for West Woolwich and the hon. and learned Member
for South Shields, I think if they would look a little more closely at Clause 2, they would appreciate the difficulties of doing what they propose in this Bill, and the advantages of giving a Judge the overriding right which paragraph (d) of Clause 2 does give to the learned Judge.

Sir J. SIMON: I am not very fond of lawyers' debates, and particularly dislike Parliamentary discussion on extremely technical matters, but as my hon. and learned Friend opposite has just said, the question that is raised here is really one that concerns the rights of citizens. It is not very easy to debate it without the use of technicalities, but the question, undoubtedly, is one of very general importance. One or two things will be admitted. I think it is generally admitted that the very severe restrictions which were put, temporarily, owing to the conditions of the War, upon the right of a jury in an ordinary Common Law action, were restrictions which, though at the moment inevitable, nobody would desire permanently to preserve. I think it is also agreed that there are cases which will come, to be tried in the ordinary Common Law Courts which, owing to their complexity, owing to the fact that there are great masses of documents to be examined, and that they involve a prolonged examination of accounts, and for reasons of that sort, it would not be fair or sensible to ask 12 citizens in a jury box to try. Anyone who has had experience of Courts of Law, or who has had the melancholy experience of sitting in a jury box, will know that the jury are not provided, and cannot, perhaps, be provided, with every document in the case, and it would be quite impracticable and most unreasonable to expect 12 citizens, however devoted and careful, to follow a case of such complexity.
Therefore, it seems to me that the question comes down to be simply this—what is the restriction, if any, which must be put upon the prima facie right which I hold everybody ought to have in a common law case to have his case tried by a jury? I do not agree with the description that appears to have been given to this Bill in another place, if indeed it was said, that it restores the whole right as it existed before the War, with the qualification about cases of great elaboration and complexity. The truth is that causes a great elaboration
and complexity on the ground of voluminous documents involved, or on the ground that it would involve a close examination of accounts were, before the War, excluded by a rule. In cases like that juries were not asked to undertake the business of trying them before the War, and they will not be asked to do so now. We do not want to alter the pre-War practice, if that is what the Government are proposing to do in this respect. These cases were covered by a rule.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: indicated dissent.

Sir J. SIMON: Perhaps I have not put the matter quite correctly, but, in substance, before the War I think the practice was this, that if a case was a case involving a prolonged examination of accounts the case was not tried by a jury. I thought there was a rule to that effect. The real question, and it is a very practical question, is this—ought we to provide now, when we are going back to pre-War practice, this modification, that a Judge should be entitled to examine the pleading in a case, and to say, "It seems to me that, really, this is a case," which may be about negligence or nuisance or trespass, "which could more fitly be tried by a Judge like myself or another Judge rather than by a Judge and jury." If the Judge says that, he has very likely good reasons for saying it, but, none the less, one of the litigants may have a very strong opinion that he would like to have a jury, and the real question for the House of Commons to decide is this, should the Judge, who is an experienced and a most honest gentleman, and who, no doubt, has formed his opinion with great care, be allowed to say, "This is a case which could be more fitly tried by a Judge without a jury," or should the litigant, if he wants a jury, get one?
There is the view, and it is a view which I am inclined to support, that people who have recourse to our Courts in these Common Law actions have, unless there are strong reasons to the contrary, the right to have their cases tried with the help of a jury, even though the Judge thinks that he could do it better himself. That is no reflection on the Judges at all. All of us, who know
anything about the Courts, have the greatest possible respect for the Judges, but I am inclined to think this is one of the rights of the subject which we should be very slow to take away from a British citizen. He may say, "I may be right or I may be wrong, but on these matters of fact I would prefer that my case should be tried by my fellow citizens, by people from the same county or town in which I live, subject, of course, to the direction of the Judge in matters of law. Whether they decide for me or against me, at any rate, they are people of my own sort, and they will decide it without its being simply a judicial conclution." I believe that, on the whole, gives more satisfaction to the parties. It is no good grumbling if the jury is against you. What is more, it is no good appealing, or very seldom is it much good appealing. A decision by a jury in these cases produces quite as much satisfaction to the ordinary litigant as the most judicial conclusion of the most admirable Judge. Therefore, my own view would be, for what it is worth, that we should be very slow to take away from ordinary litigants the right, which they undoubtedly enjoyed before the War, merely on the ground that the Judge has formed the opinion that the case is one which is more fit to be tried without a jury.
The question is not really in cases of this sort which is the more fit way of trial. The question is, rather, whether the circumstances of the case are such that it is not reasonable to call upon twelve citizens, who have other things to do, to devote themselves to the extremely arduous business of deciding these matters1 of fact. All of us who are familiar with these cases have the greatest possible respect for the devotion and the impartiality of the British Judge, and yet, at the same time, I make bold to say that it is the experience of those who practise in the Courts that, sometimes, the Judge seems to take at an earlier stage in the case a more decided view and, as it seems to some of us, perhaps according to the side we are on, a more perverse view than twelve silent men or women sitting in a jury box. I know that the Judge tries to keep an open mind and is willing to listen to the arguments on both sides, but there are a great many people who become involved in litigation who strongly hold that they would sooner have the right to submit questions of fact
to fellow citizens like themselves than that they should feel that they are bound to accept the views on disputed matters of fact of even the most distinguished and learned Judge.
It is very material to note that the view that I have been venturing to put to the House is a view which is entertained by some of the most distinguished Judges now serving on the Bench. I notice that Lord Justice Bankes, whose name has been referred to in this Debate, used the following language about the functions of a jury:
I trust that the other aspect of the case may also be considered, namely, whether the right to a trial by jury is not sufficiently important to be restored and maintained, subject always to exceptions which should be precisely indicated. The standard of much that is valuable in the life of the community has been set by juries in civil cases. They have proved themselves in the past to be a great safeguard against many forms of wrong and oppression. They are essentially a good tribunal to decide cases in which there is hard swearing on either side, or a direct conflict of evidence on matters of fact, or in which the amount of damage is at large and has to be assessed. There seems no particular reason why a party in a breach of promise action should be entitled to a jury, and the party who has a dispute with a neighbour, which involves his character as a truthful or an honest person, should be liable to be told that the Judge does not consider it desirable that his case should be tried with a jury, or that it is not convenient that it should be tried at the Assizes of the county in which he is known.
I think that statement from a very distinguished member of the Judiciary is1 extremely important. He has had long experience in trying matters of fact and in trying matters of law, and not only is he impartial—that is common to the whole of the British Bench—but the obvious care with which he forms every conclusion he expresses makes1 his opinion one to which the House must pay great regard. That being so, I think that the practical question will turn out to be whether the words
unless in the opinion of the Court or a Judge the cause is more fit to be tried without a jury
go far enough to protect the claims of the litigant who wants a jury. I confess that I do not think that they do. I do not think that a litigant who want a jury ought to be told, "The Judge thinks that this case can be more fittingly tried without a jury, and that is the end of it." Therefore, I hope that when this Bill
reaches the Committee stage the Attorney-General, in fulfilment of the promise which he has been good enough to make, will consider an alternative form of words which is more favourable to the ordinary litigant.
I agree that there is a serious practical objection to giving the unrestricted right to a jury in cases which may involve very great complications. That is true. Most practising lawyers know of such cases within their own experience. On the other hand, I think that a Judge who exercises the influence which a really wise Judge does exercise in his Court, and the good feeling and the good sense of the professional people engaged in it do usually get rid of a jury in cases of that sort, and I should prefer the test to be, not so much a test as to whether the Judge thinks that the case is more fit to be tried without a jury, as a test as to whether this is a case which, in the opinion of the Judge, cannot be satisfactorily tried by a jury at all. If that is the view that must be taken, that would be, no doubt, a reason why an exception should be made.
I doubt very much whether paragraph (d) of Clause 2 of this Bill really does go very far in restoring something which is not now provided as compared with the language of the Act of 1920. The Act of 1920 allows the Court or a Judge to direct a trial without a jury if they consider that the action cannot be as conveniently tried with a jury as without a jury. I do not know what is the difference between convenience and fitness, but I can imagine a great deal of hairsplitting as to the extent of the difference between the two phrases. I believe that the view of a very large number of lawyers of the non-technical sort as well as of a very large branch of the public to be that the test ought to be of a different kind than the view which is bona fide formed by a Judge, however wise and intelligent as to which is the more fit mode of trial. One Judge may think that Mr. Justice So-and-so is a more fit Judge to try this case than Mr. Justice Somebody-else. That is not the sort of test that is required. We are dealing here with one of the important rights of British citizens, and it is a right which we ought not to take away because an impartial Judge thinks that the matter can be dealt with otherwise. The citizen ought to be left to enjoy the right which
is one of his traditional, inherent and most valuable rights, except in cases where practical convenience makes it impracticable so to do.
Those of us who know the way in which juries devote themselves to trying to decide these questions of fact can never sufficiently express our admiration of their devotion to their duties. It is certainly a source of constant surprise to me. One has heard of Judges sometimes being tempted to break into levity and irrelevancy because the case is boring and lengthy, but, speaking; broadly, it is true that when you get 12 British citizens working in a jury box to try a question of fact they set to work to discharge their duty in a way that is a credit to the whole community. They are practically unpaid for their work, or they are very miserably paid. They have no means of choosing what the case, is or of determining its length. They are under orders of the Court as to when they are to come and go. One of them may be more quick-witted than his neighbours and be bored to extinction, while the same matter is being explained to his colleagues over and over again, and yet, on the whole, both the good temper of the jurors and the efficiency of the jury system are one of the greatest proofs of the validity of our claim that this country is the home of practical justice, and I am unwilling that we should totally give up what I believe to be a most important part of the British judicial system, before we have a final opportunity of considering all the aspects of the question in the. Committee stage.

Sir ELLIS HUME-WILLIAMS: I very much admire the hesitation with which lawyers in this House have risen to address us on the subject of the administration of justice. I express a similar hesitation in following in their footsteps, but I am going to suggest to the House, quite apart from the merits or demerits of this question, that what we are chiefly concerned with at this moment is the extraordinary procedure which has been followed by the Attorney-General in introducing this Bill in the manner in which he has done. During all the time in which I have been in the House of Commons, I never remember a representative of the Government, when introducing a Bill, saying, "Clause so-and-so is a matter of
principle. It has been settled in the House of Lords, I do not agree with it and I shall be glad to see it taken out, and I give you a pledge that if this Bill goes to a Committee and this Clause is taken out I will not object." I never knew such a weird procedure as that. Practically the Bill has no paragraph (d) of Clause 2. The Attorney-General says that he does not like it, and that when the Bill goes to a Committee he will be glad if somebody would insert something else. It would be a very much better idea if, in future, when introducing a Bill, we had simply a blank Bill with, outside it, the Title "Administration of Justice," leaving all the Clauses to be filled in on Committee as hon. Members like. That would very much shorten discussions in this House. That seems to me to be an admirable idea, but this is the first time in my experience that any attempt has been made to put it into practical application.
The question is not only one of chaffing the Attorney-General, but it has its importance for this reason. The object of a Second Reading Debate is to discuss the question of principle in a Bill, and we are told that this is a question of principle. I would like very much to know what is the principle that is going to be followed, because I stand, I daresay, practically alone among the members of the legal profession in this House in not wanting to see any extension of the jury system at all. I, on the contrary, would rather see an extension of the power given to people who go to law to have their cases tried without a jury. I have no doubt that the jury devote the utmost care and attention to the cases that are brought before them, but they are sometimes very human, and the verdicts at which they arrive some times do an infinity of harm. I have a case in mind, if I may give an example which has just occurred to me, of a doctor, a man in a very large practice in the Midlands, who brought an action of divorce—

Mr. PRINGLE: Was it not the Judge, rather than the jury, who was in that case responsible?

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: You have not heard the story yet. The point was that this doctor tried to divorce his wife. The case was tried before a jury. It lasted five days and he failed. As, perhaps,
the House knows, the law is that the husband has to provide the wife with the cost of bringing an action against himself. Having failed once, she brought a fresh action, founded upon allegations made subsequent to the last trial. On this occasion the jury, for some reason, went absolutely wrong, and without any foundation at all found a verdict in her favour. The husband went to the Court of Appeal. The case lasted five days, and the Court of Appeal set the verdict aside and sent the case down for a new trial. That would be the third trial, plus the hearing of the Court of Appeal. What is the result? The unfortunate husband has had to provide his own costs and the costs of his wife. He has not a penny left in the world and is an absolutely ruined man. His practice is gone. He not only cannot defend himself, but he cannot provide his wife with the funds which she desires to bring about a new trial. The parties are practically where they were, except that the husband is ruined, and ruined entirely by a perfectly erroneous verdict of the jury. I do not say that such cases are a common occurrence, but they do happen sometimes.
I would like to put a provision in the Bill, that when juries disagree the case should be retried at once by the Judge without a jury. Think what the expense is if the jury fail to agree. The parties themselves, or the witnesses in the case, very often brought up from the country, have to go back. Then they return to London, and all the expense has to be incurred once more. I hope that when this Bill gets into Committee someone will be able to draft a clause providing that if the jury system is to be dealt with, in cases where the jury fail to agree the parties shall at any rate have a fresh trial, and at once, without incurring all the expense of sending their witnesses back to the country and bringing them back to London again. As to paragraph (d) of Clause (2), I do not wonder that the Attorney-General is not particularly enamoured of it. The first thing that is to happen under this paragraph is that you will have to make application for a case to be tried by jury and that first application is made to what we call a Master. Suppose that he makes an order, that after careful investigation he says, "I think this case ought to be tried by a jury." It is open to the parties to agree.
From that order they can appeal to a Judge in Chambers. Again the matter is gone into at great length. The Judge upholds the Master, and says, "I think this is a case which ought to be tried by a jury." As this Clause stands, when the case comes on for trial it is open to the Judge, without the consent of the parties, to say "It is quite true that this case has been recommended for trial by a jury, but I do not think it should be tried by a jury. Therefore I shall discharge the jury and it will be tried without a jury." That is practically giving the Judge at the trial a right of appeal, which has already been exercised, and allowing him to reverse the decision at which another High Court Judge has arrived.
At least let the person who goes to trial be certain how his case is to be tried. If it is to be tried by a jury let him have his jury. If a jury is refused, let him go to the Judge and he can establish his right or fail. But when the trial comes on let him know for certain what is to happen. This is a blank in the Bill which might very well be filled when the Bill is in Committee. Whoever intends to draft a now paragraph (d) might bear these facts in mind. Clause 1 provides for the arrangement of circuits.
Sub-section (1) says:
If at any time it appears to the Lord Chief Justice of England that there is no business or no substantial amount of business to be transacted at the Assizes then about to be held at any place on a circuit and that having regard to all the circumstances of the case it is desirable that an Order should be made under this Section, he may, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, by Order direct that Assizes shall not on the occasion of that circuit be held at that place, and where any such Order is made then, notwithstanding any enactment or custom to the contrary, Assizes shall not on that occasion be held at the place specified in the Order.
What is to happen to the unsubstantial amount of business? Is it to be sent to some other Judge for trial, or is it to be brought to London, or is it to stand over until the next Assizes? No doubt that is provided for in the Bill, but it is not plain and the matter is very important. If an hon. Member had a case coming on at the Assizes and was prepared for the trial, but was told at the last moment that it was unsubstantial, he would want to know what was to happen to his case. It may be unsubstantial from the point of view of the public. No doubt the learned Attorney-General will be able to
give us some information on the point when he replies. I object altogether to the course which has been taken in regard to this Bill. We are entitled to all information on Second Reading on all questions of principle, and the idea that anyone can come here and say, "Here is a Clause. I do not like it, and you can alter it as you like in Committee," is wrong altogether, and is robbing this House of one of its most important privileges, namely, the discussion here, before the Committee stage, of all the vital questions of public right.

Mr. MADEN: I do not wish to say anything more about trial by jury, except that I think the case against paragraph (d) of Clause (2) was put very conclusively by my right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), when he said that the real test should be whether the litigant wanted a jury, not necessarily whether trial by jury was best, but whether the litigant wanted such trial. We have had the jury system so long now that trial by jury has come to be regarded as a right, and if any change were made without the full consent of the people affected it would be a retrograde step. I want to say a few words about Clause 1. We are told that Assizes will be given up if there is no business or no substantial business. What is a substantial amount of business? The Lord Chief Justice is to decide. How is he to decide? Is he to have one case or two cases or three cases at the Assize towns? Are the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor to deal with questions arising all over the country as to whether a case is going to be tried, let us say at Carlisle, or is it to be tried somewhere else.
I suppose it will be arranged that a case not taken at a particular Assize town as a result of this provision will be tried somewhere on the same circuit or at the nearest assize town on the next circuit, but, however small a case may be, I cannot see why it should be left over for four or five months to the next Assizes, when, it may be, there is some person in prison awaiting trial. A great hardship might be involved in delaying the trial of one or two cases, held not to be "a substantial amount of business." Speaking of the Northern Circuit, with which I am familiar, assuming that a case is transferred from Westmorland to Carlisle,
what is to be the composition of the jury? Is it to be a Cumberland jury or a Westmorland jury or some of both. There is another old right, quite as ancient as the right to trial by jury, and that is the right to trial in a man's own county where the crime is alleged to have been committed. Are we suddenly to lose that right and to have it left in someone else's hands as to whether a case should be tried in the county where it arises or in some other county? Then, again, if Westmorland jurors are sent to Cumberland consider the inconvenience involved to them. I suppose the idea of moving these Assizes is one of convenience, but it is very little trouble for the Judge to get to Appleby and stop there a day on his way to Carlisle. The only person who suffers is the high sheriff of the county. The grand juries do not want these changes, and there have been protest resolutions at the mere suggestion. It will make very little difference to the Government or to the local authorities, but it will make a great deal of difference to the people engaged in the cases, who may have to go from one county to another and, probably, spend a night or two nights away from home. It may mean two days' absence from work instead of one. It is bad enough to have to travel from one end of the county to another, but to compel people to travel into the next county seems to me a backward step. We have just sent divorce cases to certain Assize towns to make it easier for them to have their cases tried. That was a progressive step. The present proposal seems to be going in exactly the opposite direction, and instead of making it easier and cheaper for litigants to have their cases tried, it is being made more difficult and more expensive. After all, the Courts exist for the benefit of the litigants and not the litigants for the benefit of the Courts. That is the principle we should consider in these matters, and that is my chief reason for opposing Clause 1 of the Bill as it stands, and hoping that it may be removed or amended in Committee

Mr. CASSELS: May I, as another "hesitating lawyer," take a small part in this Debate, and make some observations by way of expressing my astonishment that the Attorney-General should have made such a speech as he did in introducing this Measure? The Government
seem to adopt at this present moment the extraordinary attitude of taking up children, grumbling about their shape and expecting them to be altered when they put them in the creche upstairs. I do not take that view. If the Labour Government proposed to introduce a Bill which would be acceptable to this House, they would at least have redrafted it and have introduced into it some Clause dealing properly with this very controversial and important matter of trial by jury. In the Clauses of the Bill as drafted, we find certain specified actions in which the litigant has a right to trial by jury—actions for libel, slander, malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, and those other wonderful actions which always excite admiration in Courts of Law particularly among the public, namely, actions for seduction and breach of promise. It is an extraordinary thing that there should have been left out such important actions as actions of fraud, actions of negligence and many other classes of actions which are equally important, to the litigants concerned, and which certainly could be well tried by a jury. I find it difficult to understand why in the case where the milkman has not carried out his promise to the servant girl they should have a jury of 12 men and women to sit to listen to the evidence in a case and finally to decide it, and yet in an action for negligence against a doctor, shall we say, there is no right to a trial by a jury.
It seems to me one of the things which might have been done by the Attorney-General in this matter would have been to consider carefully some Clause which would have re-established in this country the right to a trial by a jury. Let me state the position. Up to the time of the passing of the Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, all common law actions were in fact tried by jury. That Act introduced for the first time the possibility of trial by a Judge alone in common law actions. That Act was the result of a very careful consideration of our common law procedure by Commissioners who sat for a long time thinking out the best ways of trying various sorts of actions. The Commissioners hesitated about recommending that trial by jury should be superseded except in cases merely of account unless the parties preferred that their cause should be tried by a Judge alone. Then came the Judicature Act,
1873, which by Section 57 gave the right of referring matters requiring prolonged examination of documents. May I here say it is a curious thing that there should be a fear on the part of some who think that a jury would be unable to consider an involved question of account or a case involving a large number of documents. They think that a jury in a Civil Court is quite unable to give a decision in a case which has these features, whilst there are cases in the Criminal Courts which involve documents just as numerous and accounts just as complicated. Yet no one would think for a moment of suggesting that in a criminal cause which possessed these features we should have the case tried by a Judge alone. It would not, I admit, be right or proper to do so because there is a different issue involved, namely, that of guilt or innocence. Though there may be a large number of documents in a case, I cannot see why a Judge should say, "There are 500 letters in this case therefore I think it should be tried by me alone." He never says that when it is a breach of promise case. He prefers there to let the jury consider the matter.
Certain rules of court were passed in 1883 which gave any party to an action the right to a trial by a jury upon making application and, later, a time limit was imposed as to when the application should be made. It is in consequence of the various tinkerings, legislative and otherwise, which we have had with this matter and in consequence of course of the War, that we are in this present position, and that there arises the difficulty which litigants have in certain classes of cases of getting their cases tried by a jury. In the Act of 1920 the word "convenient" was used. It is now proposed to substitute for that word "convenient" the word "fit." Over the word "convenient" there has arisen an extraordinary dispute as to whether the position was that the litigant, in making an application, had his right to a jury because it was convenient to have it tried by a jury, or whether it was left to the discretion of the Court or Judge, meaning thereby the Master, as to whether or not the jury should be ordered. You have this result, that in these specified actions juries are granted as a right, but in other actions, of negligence particularly, it was the view of the Court that the convenience really was the con-
venience of the Court, and they came to the conclusion that it was the more convenient to try an action of negligence without a jury than with one. The result is that there was certainly a great grievance, because large numbers of cases, of negligence particularly, could not be tried with a jury.
This Bill deals not only with the High Court, but also with the County Court, and in the County Court one does know that certain Judges take certain views with regard to juries. The position in the later Clauses of the Bill is just the same in regard to County Courts. I daresay hon. Members have heard what his Honour Judge Parry wrote in a book, called "What the Judge Said," with regard to a particular County Court Judge. He was saying that he went to sit for a Judge who had died, and he found that all the witnesses in a particular case, when called upon, were told to go outside the Court. The Judge called up the usher and said: "I do not wish that these witnesses shall be put out of Court when a case is called upon, as it disturbs the Court, and, what is more, it disturbs the Court when they are called back again." The usher said: "The late Judge never had them back." That is the position with regard to a lot of County Court Judges, that they take certain views of these matters. I knew one County Court Judge who, when a case to be tried by a jury was in his list, always put it at the end of the list, so that the jury should be well inconvenienced and made to realise that, inasmuch as they had been brought to the Court to carry out their duties as citizens, at any rate they should know that they would not be looking after the job again; and at an early stage he made it clear to the jury whose jury they were, that is to say, which one of the litigants had actually called for a jury to try the particular case.
I venture to agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) said about the importance of juries, and I say that this Clause, as drafted, does not provide for the citizen of this country that right to a jury which he ought to have. That that right is important I need only refer the House to what was said by Lord Justice Atkin
in regard to trial by jury in this country. He said:
Trial by jury is an essential part of our law. It has been the bulwark of liberty, the shield of the poor from the oppression of the rich and powerful. Anyone who knows the history of our law knows that many of the liberties of the subject were originally established and are maintained by the verdicts of juries in civil cases. Many will think that at the present time the danger of attack by powerful private organisations or by encroachments of the Executive is not diminishing.
9.0 P.M.
Surely this is a time when the Attorney-General of a Labour Government could have introduced a Clause in this particular Bill which would have re-established for the citizens of this country that right to trial by jury which has been so important in our history. I would like to refer to one other Clause, and that is the first Clause, which seems to suggest that, inasmuch as occasionally Judges of Assize going to particular towns get white gloves, therefore you should abolish certain towns as Assize towns. I am not in favour of that particular Clause. It is a good thing that the "Red Judge," as he is known in the country, should make his periodical visits to the Assize towns, and it certainly gives the impression to the citizens that there is justice being brought to their doors, that there, at any rate, is the representative of law and order, that there is the man, with all his retinue, who would be ready if necessary to try any case which was there. The fact that occasionally he may waste one judicial day surely is not so important as the fact that it demonstrates to the people in the country that law and justice can be brought right to them in their own particular counties, and it is a survival of a very great thing in our system, namely, the system of Assize. I appeal to the Attorney-General to consider what has been said upon all sides with regard to this jury question, and to see, whether he cannot give to the House a real and definite undertaking, in unmistakable and clear language, that what we want in this Bill is to go back again to trial by jury as we knew it before the War, and long before the War. If he will do that, this Bill will have the support, I think, of all the lawyers, at any rate, who have ventured to take part in the Debate.

Mr. LEIF JONES: It is with more than usual trepidation that I rise to address the House on this Bill, because I believe I am the first Member of the House, who is not a lawyer, to speak on this Measure. Yet I think that, as a layman and a Member of the public, I am a good deal more concerned with this question of a jury than are the lawyers. It is pretty well known that no lawyer ever has recourse to litigation if he can help it. It is we, who are members of the public, who call upon the lawyers to argue the cases on which we rashly enter, and, therefore, I submit that in this Bill, which raises the question of whether or not we shall have a jury, we laymen are much more concerned than are the lawyers. I submit to the Attorney-General that it really is for the litigant in doubtful cases to choose whether or not he will have a jury to try his case. I understood from the statement of the Attorney-General that what he intended to do was more or less to restore the right of trial by jury as it existed before 1918, and, not being a lawyer, but speaking merely as one of the ignorant public, I asked myself why the Attorney-General did not propose to repeal the offending Clause or Clauses of the Act of 1918, and thereby automatically restore the position in which we were before that Act which did all the mischief. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us specifically why it is that he has not repealed the Clauses in the Act of 1918 which have done the mischief and deprived the subject of his protection of trial by jury, and any Clauses in the Act of 1920 which might follow thereupon. That would seem to me to be the simple, and obvious, and unlawyer-like way of dealing with the matter, if the real object be to restore to the public the protection that trial by jury gives.
I rather think the real reason why that simple course is not followed, is that it is not the intention of the learned Attorney-General, nor, indeed, I think, of any of the other learned lawyers who have addressed us, really to go back to the position as it was before 1918. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the public—not the lawyers—whether he does want to get back to the position as it was before 1918? That is the real point which concerns the public. There was power then, I understand, to withdraw from the jury cases that ought not to go to a jury, but the old, old constitutional right of the
people of the country to a jury existed practically to the satisfaction of the whole country. Why do they not go back to that position? It may be that they do not want to go back to that, and that the learned Attorney-General and the other learned lawyers are determined, in some way or other, to limit the right possessed before 1918. I do not say they cannot make a case for doing that in certain cases, but the learned Attorney-General, before asking the House to read this Bill a Second time, ought really to tell us precisely the extent to which he wishes to interfere with the old right of trial by jury. It is not reasonable to ask us to give a Second Reading to this Bill without knowing how far we are going in that direction. It does not meet the case to say that in Committee upstairs they will do the best they can and allow any Amendment. That does not meet my point. I want to know from the Attorney-General before I vote for the Second Reading of this Bill, how far he intends to go. He says he wishes to restore to a great extent the right of trial by jury, but to what extent does he propose to interfere with that right? I do say, as a member of the public—not as a lawyer—we value the right of trial by jury. We think—I am sure I speak for the great mass of this country—that the litigant ought to have the right of choosing in these cases whether he will have a jury or not, and the Attorney-General, before he calls upon us to give a Second Reading to this Bill, should tell us exactly to what extent he wishes to interfere with the right of trial by jury as it existed before the Act of 1918.

Sir MALCOLM MACNAGHTEN: I feel rather shy of joining in this Debate, not only because I am a lawyer—that, perhaps, would be a sufficient reason for shyness—but also because I have to confess that I am a whole-hearted admirer of Clause 2 of the Bill. It seems to me a most admirable Clause, and I am surprised that the Attorney-General was not prouder of it than he appeared to be. I do not pretend that Clause 2 is not capable of improvement—most of us are capable of improvement—but with a very small improvement it seems to me Clause 2 could be made almost perfect, and would entirely meet the wishes of the right hon. Member opposite. Before I try to expatiate upon the virtues of Clause 2, may
I say I do hope this Bill is going to receive a Second Reading and pass successfully through the tribulations of the Committee, because it is a matter of great public importance in the administration of justice that this Bill should be passed. They are considering, in another place, a portentous Bill consolidating all the Supreme Court of Judicature Acts, and a Joint Committee has been dealing with that Consolidation Bill. It has gone through it, as far as it can go through it, until this Bill gets passed, and it is not until this Bill is passed, and has made certain Amendments in the law which are necessary, that it will be possible to get a Consolidation Bill through. But I am sure every lawyer, and I hope every layman, will agree that it is very desirable that the Supreme Court of Judicature Acts should be consolidated, so that the simple layman, when he has nothing better to do, may be able to study in one single Act the whole law on the administration of justice. Therefore, I do hope that this Bill may have a successful and speedy passage.
May I return to Clause 2? I confess I do not understand the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood). He wants the House to reject the Bill, because it does not restore to the litigant the right which he possessed before the War of trial by jury. Really and truly before the War a litigant possessed no right to a trial by jury, no Common Law right, no Statutory right, for at that time Parliament in its wisdom had entrusted to a thing called the Rule Committee the sole absolute power of saying whether any civil case should be tried by a jury or not. I think it was my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Central Bristol (Sir T. Inskip) who spoke in terms of high praise of the Rule Committee. I do not deprecate what he said. I once had the honour, in a humble capacity, of being a member of the Rule Committee. But it is not exactly a popular tribunal. It consists of some very august persons, who meet from time to time in the Moses Room. They there issue their rules, really very much as they please. I cannot imagine a subject, who desires to have trial by jury restored to him, if he could find his way to the Moses Room, which would be very difficult, being allowed to go before the Rule Committee, and
beseech the Rule Committee to give him some ancient common law right of trial by jury. There is a misunderstanding about this matter. Before the War, there was no right to trial by jury, because the absolute power of saying what should be tried by a jury, and what should not, was vested in the Rule Committee.

Mr. JONES: Did not the Act of 1918 take away from the litigant some powers which he had?

Sir M. MACNAGHTEN: From 1873 to 1918 it all depended upon the Rule Committee. In 1918 the right that then existed of a trial by jury was cut down, but now, for the first time, it is proposed to give to the subject a Statutory right of trial by jury, which no Judge, no Master, can take away, because if this Bill be passed with these Clauses in, those cases where Parliament says there is to be a trial by jury, a trial by jury must take place. I venture to think there has been some little misconception about this question of a right to trial by jury. We are dealing merely with civil cases, not with criminal cases, and in those cases, as a rule, there are two parties, a plaintiff and a defendant. If both plaintiff and defendant want to be tried by a jury there is nothing to prevent them. If they both want a jury let them have a jury. Again, ii they both do not want a jury, if they both prefer to be tried by a Judge, there is no reason why they should not be so tried, whether in an action for libel, or seduction, or anything else. The difficulty only arises where the one party wants to be tried with a jury and the other party wants to be tried without a jury. In those cases it is really impossible to do anything, and you must leave it to the Court to decide, because they cannot both have their own way. Somebody has to decide and you must leave it to the Court or the Judge to decide. Here I come to the only criticism I am going to make upon Clause 2. Sub-section (1, d) says:
Any cause … shall, if any party thereto makes an application in that behalf, be tried with a jury unless in the opinion of the Court or the Judge the cause is more fit to be tried without a jury.
I agree there with the criticism made by the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) that where one party wants to have a jury and the other wants the case tried without a jury, it would be much better to provide, unless the Judge is
satisfied that the case cannot be fairly tried without a jury, to leave the onus on the person objecting to the jury to show that the action cannot be fairly and reasonably tried with a jury. If the Attorney-General would be willing to move that Amendment in Committee—and I rather gathered from what he said in his opening speech he would be quite prepared to do that—it would be better to do it. Then, as it seems to me, Clause 2 would be about as perfect as any Clause in an Act of Parliament can reasonably be expected to be; for it does, in fact, then secure that there shall be a trial by jury in all cases where the parties want a trial by jury, except those cases where, owing to the nature of the case, a trial by jury cannot be satisfactory.
After all, it must be remembered that the object of litigation is to arrive at justice. Some hon. Members appear to demur at that, and smile. I think I am entitled to retort that with more experience of Courts of Justice hon. Members will realise that not only is it the object of the Courts to arrive at justice, but that, in fact, in a great majority of cases they do attain justice. In some cases a jury would be the satisfactory way in which to arrive at justice, and in some cases and Courts a jury would be, in fact, a hindrance and a bar to arriving at justice. The other Clause which has been subject to comment is Clause 1, which contains power to dispense with the holding of Assizes in places where they were unnecessary—where there is no business or no substantial business. Here we get to the old controversy between the county town accustomed to have its Assizes and the position brought about by the new power and by those in favour of economy of time and economy of expense. I am in favour of economy of time and expense, but it is not really true that the expense of the Assizes falls wholly upon the town. Indeed a considerable expense falls upon the public funds, and I should have thought it was desirable in these days of greatly improved means of locomotion, and the demands upon the public Exchequer, that it might have been arranged that the business should have been taken at some neighbouring town. Of course the towns in which the Assizes have been accustomed to be held do not like it, but the Clause seems to be a moderate Clause.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: As no one has, I think, risen on these benches to support the appeal made by the other benches for an enlargement of the right of trial by jury, I should just like to add my voice to those which have already been given. I know the strength of the feeling amongst hon. Members on these benches in the direction, and I feel particularly entitled to emphasise this, because the city of which I have the honour to be one of the representatives has the proud distinction of being the originator of the system of trial by jury. It was in Leicester that, when disorder was proceeding from a quarrel on some civil matter, one of the citizens suggested that 12 men should be called together to settle the matter. It was settled there with such effect that the quarrel came to an end, and from there the system spread throughout the country. Therefore, I do support very strongly the claim that the power to insist upon trial by jury should be extended, so far as it reasonably can, within the four corners of this Bill.

Mr. WILBERFORCE ALLEN: It is with considerable hesitation that I rise to speak. Except for one or two speeches on the opposite benches, I should be more or less in a position of a voice crying in the wilderness, for, so far as I know, all the hon. Members who have already addressed the House are members of the senior branch of the profession. As a member of the junior branch, I may, perhaps, detain the House for a few moments, because I want, if I may, to appeal to the Attorney-General to stick to the guns behind which he is standing, or, at any rate, to stick to the guns behind which I thought he was standing. I share entirely the view of the hon. Gentleman opposite who has just sat down in regard to this question. Perhaps I may be able to voice an opinion born of experience which is not always shared by the eminent and learned counsel who have spoken and who, necessarily, have formed their opinions as a result of their experience. The first observation I would make is this. The hon. Member who has just sat down reminded us that we were here dealing solely with civil actions, and I do not think there is the slightest doubt that the verdict of this House would be absolutely unanimous, if we were dealing with criminal procedure, there should be no tampering whatever with the right of
trial by jury. That is a matter on which we need not spend half a minute.
I want to suggest to the House, with the utmost respect, realising the position in which I stand, that in the past this right of trial by jury in civil actions has on occasion been abused, and has sometimes been seriously abused. The hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), who introduced the Amendment, was responsible for teaching me all the law I know and, probably, all the law I ever shall know, and I am sure he will not regard it as a breach of confidence if I remind him of the old tag, "No case, or poor case, have a jury." I know there are those who belittle that, and suggest it has no relation to the facts, but, speaking as a solicitor, I venture to think that, if there are other solicitors listening to me, they will not strongly dissent. I do want to suggest that in the past, with regard to a particular sort of case, this power indiscriminately to call for a jury has, in a certain number of cases, amounted to a very mild form of blackmail. There are hon. Members here, who are not so old, who have not been practising at the law for so long a time as to forget the class of case on which they were engaged when they first set out on their legal career. That point in my career is probably more recent than in the case of some other Members. We know there is a particular type of small case, particularly in the County Courts, where the solicitor advises his client that if the case is tried by Judge alone, his client cannot succeed, but if he can get the service of a jury there is the possibility that he can appeal to their sentiments and to the sympathy which is latent in the average man, and hope that whilst strict justice might deny him success there is the possibility that by summoning a jury, particularly a common jury, he may get round the soft side of the jury and obtain a verdict which he might not otherwise obtain. I think that applies obviously to the High Court as well.
I deal particularly with the County Courts, because one hon. Member stressed the point of having juries in County Courts. In the kind of action to which I am referring, a larger number are held in the County Court. I want to suggest to the House very seriously for its con-
sideration that in the past there has been this tendency to abuse it. I do not want to attack, and I do not believe any Member inside or outside the legal profession would wish to attack, the right of a subject to demand a jury in all difficult circumstances, but I do want to suggest that in the past it has very often been a case of a licence on the part of this or that litigant to make himself a nuisance to his fellow creatures. I would remind the House of an element in the case which is not always present in the minds of the hon. and learned Gentlemen who have addressed us. Frequently in the course of my professional experience I have been consulted by unfortunate citizens who have been summoned to serve on a jury. Only recently I was consulted by a man in a very small way of business and who was under the necessity of closing his shop for a whole day in order that he might respond. I discovered afterwards that that man who had been compelled to close down his shop for a whole day had been spending his time dealing with what I venture to describe, without fear of contradiction, as an absolutely trifling action. It was really a tragedy, a calamity, that a man had to sacrifice so much to respond to the call laid upon him as a citizen and had to waste his time as he wasted it that day dealing with a trifling action where nobody's reputation and nobody's honour was at stake, but one of those multitudinous small cases which could, after all, in many cases, be settled if only there was a little bit of intelligence and common sense applied by the litigants.
The hon. Member for West Woolwich endeavoured to point out the absurdity of any distinction, say, between a breach of promise action and what is familiarly known as a running-down action. The distinction is obvious. In a breach of promise action there is no question. An adverse judgment one way or the other might have very serious effects on the reputation of one of the litigants, but who is going to say the reputation of the litigant is affected if he fails in an action for being run over by an omnibus in the streets of London. It is the common experience of those who practise in the Courts that time and again the Judges say, with regard to litigants under those circumstances, "I do not suggest that the plaintiff or the defendant is saying what
is untrue." It is one of those many cases which arise in which two entirely honest bona fide people form different impressions. No question of honour or character is at stake. It is simply one of those many cases where there is a bona fide difference of opinion as to what did or did not happen under particular circumstances. In that type of case, and many other types of cases which come before the Courts where similar questions are involved, and no question of honour arises, it is hardly fair, however trifling the case may be, and however small the damage may be, that the plaintiff has a right to say to 12 busy men, "You must come here, whatever the sacrifice to your business, at however great inconvenience there may be; I have the right to demand That you shall come here and settle this pettifogging business. I have the right to demand that you shall come here and spend your time and decide what under existing circumstances a fair-minded Judge could settle." I remind the House, although it seems quite unnecessary to do so, that it is all very well to go back 100 or 200 years, and suggest that we should get back to the conditions appertaining to those days. But do not forget that in those days there was not that confidence in the integrity and the impartiality of His Majesty's Judges which obtains at the present time. The litigant did not then feel that he would get absolutely impartial justice at the hands of one of the Judges of those days. Although it may seem impertinent for anyone in my position to say so, I think every man knows to-day that he will get impartial justice at the hands of the Bench. That being so, arguments which might have been applicable 100 years ago have not the same force in present circumstances. On that ground I appeal to the Attorney-General to permit me to repeat what I have said in urging him to stick to his guns in this respect and not give way. I should like to think that on the lines I have indicated it plight be possible to strengthen Clause 2.

Mr. NESBITT: I approach this subject from the position of the gentleman described by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) as a "non-technical lawyer," but I have the advantage of speaking with the authority and the approval of the Council
of the Law Society, of which I am a member. I am very glad that this question has been raised by the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), because it has enabled hon. Members, and more particularly the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley, to address the House and to indicate the direction in which it is hoped to get assurances from the Attorney-General. This Bill contains so many matters of great importance, not only to the profession of the law, but also to our citizens, that I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment to a Division if the Attorney-General decides to meet the matter in the way I have indicated. This Bill contains many matters of very great importance, but I will only deal with three, and one of them is a question with which the Bill does not deal.
I want to say a few words with regard to Clause 1 which the Attorney-General has described, and which deals with the difficulties which have arisen when Assizes are held in towns where there is no business to be conducted. I wish to refer to that Clause rather particularly because it is the result of the Report of a Committee appointed by the Lord Chancellor and presided over by Mr. Justice Rigby Swift, and of which I and the hon. and learned Member for Gillingham (Sir G. Hohler) were members. The Clause exactly describes what the Report of that Committee, which was composed largely of King's Counsel from different circuits desire should be included in the Bill. This Committee was confronted with a long list of towns at which it was said Assizes need not be held in the future, towns where perhaps there has been only one case in a year, and possibly not even that. It was felt that it would be difficult to specify those circuit towns where Assizes should not be held with any satisfactory results. Therefore Clause 1 is one with regard to which I have heard no comment.
The Clause around which most of the discussion this evening has revolved I do not propose to say anything about, and that is the proposal which deals with the restoration of the right to trial by jury. But there is another Clause in the Bill to which I wish to direct the attention of the House. The Administration of Justice Bill, so far as it goes, is good, but it does not go far enough. In a Bill of this character, which is the result of very careful
consideration of all the matters dealt with in it, and the result of the Report of the Committee to which I have referred, I quite realise that it could not deal with all the matters to be amended, but I hope when this Bill gets into Committee, that the particular matter I am about to mention, which is of great public importance, will receive attention, and I am hoping to move an Amendment in Committee dealing with it, and, therefore, I think it is right to call the attention of the House to the point I want to make.
Clause 11 deals with probate registries. There are 40 probate registries in this country in which the wills of persons who die can be proved or at which grants of letters of administration can be made to the legal representatives of those who die and do not leave wills. A great many wills are proved in London, but with regard to the wills of persons not proved in London they must be proved in the particular probate registry district within the jurisdiction of which the testator of the intestate was living when he died. That, I think, is quite intelligible, because I believe in 1857 the ecclesiastical jurisdiction with regard to the proving of wills was taken as the basis for a new jurisdiction, and the probate registries were established in that way. Having regard to the ecclesiastical jurisdiction which prevailed before, I have an idea that the time has now come for reducing the number of probate registries, and this has been recommended by a Committee presided over by Mr. Justice Tomlin. It has not, however, been dealt with in this Bill, and I do not complain of that. The matter is dealt with in the same way as assize towns, and I know which towns probate registries are proposed to be removed, but that is not germane to the Report to which I have alluded.
I will take a concrete example. In the case, say, of a merchant who has carried on his business in Liverpool, whose executors are in Liverpool, whose property is in Liverpool, whoso solicitors are in Liverpool, but who, like all proper and Liverpool merchants, lives across the Mersey in Cheshire, and dies in his bed in Cheshire, where Liverpool merchants should die, why should his will not be capable of being proved in Liverpool? It has to be proved in Cheshire, because, at the time of his death, he happened to
be living in Cheshire. I would ask the Attorney-General to consider, when the time conies, whether Clause 11 of the Bill, which deals with the number of Probate Registries, cannot be extended, or a new Clause added, putting an end to that territorial jurisdiction, which I submit is now out of date for the reasons I have given. In the Report of the Royal Commission, I think in 1915, dealing with the Civil Service, there was a recommendation that the territorial jurisdiction of probate registries should be brought to an end, and that a man's will should be proved in that probate registry in which it was most convenient that it should be proved. The Report, issued in July last year, of Mr. Justice Tomlin's Committee, which was a strong Committee and considered the whole matter, says:
We think that the existing system should be remodelled and recognised upon the following lines, that is to say:
1. At present each registry has a jurisdiction only in respect of its own district. We think that this territorial jurisdiction should be abolished, and that every registry should have jurisdiction irrespective of locality. This will necessitate some slight change of practice in order to guard against duplication of grants, but we are satisfied that there is no difficulty in this respect which cannot be overcome.
The Report of the Royal Commission in 1915 recommended this, and the branch of the profession to which I belong, and which is much concerned in the proving of the wills of testators or getting grants of letters of administration, knows how needful is this reform. This matter of the territorial jurisdiction of probate registries has also been considered by a body with which many Members of this House are acquainted, called the Associated Provincial Law Societies. It consists of sixty-two separate law societies, and they have great experience, because they are situated in different parts of the country. They have unanimously agreed that this is an amendment of the law which should be introduced and included in any such Bill as the present. The Council of the Law Society takes that view also, and it is very largely at their request and at the request of the Associated Provincial Law Societies that I have drawn the attention of the House to this matter.
My last point is one which I think can be dealt with in Committee, and I only refer to it now in case it should be said
that it was not mentioned here. It appears to me that the question of the qualification of persons for appointment to offices in the Supreme Court should now be defined, as it is defined in the Schedule to this Bill. The qualifications of these various persons is to be found scattered, as so often happens in these oases, piecemeal through different Acts of Parliament, or is the result of rules, or of custom and habit. Clause 3 of the Bill requires that
A person shall not be qualified for appointment to any of the offices in the Supreme Court specified in the first column of the First Schedule to this Act unless he is a person of the description specified in the second column of that Schedule in respect of that office.
For example, there are the masters in the King's Bench Division, the official referees, masters in lunacy, registrars in lunacy, taxing masters, and other officers who perform important work in the Supreme Court. The qualifications of persons appointed to these offices are now clearly defined, to the great advantage, I think, of all persons belonging to the service. There are only two of these classes of officers about whom I should like to say a word, which, perhaps, might more fittingly be said in Committee. One is the master in lunacy, who performs an enormous amount of work of a similar kind to that done by the masters in Chancery. Far be it from me to enter into any discussion with regard to the administration of the lunacy laws, or even of the property of persons dealt with under those Statutes, but this work, which refers in the main to the affairs of persons who are not found lunatics by examination, but who, under that kindly Clause about age and infirmity, are not able to manage their affairs, and some member of whose family is appointed a receiver to manage them for them, very much as the affairs of infants are managed. That jurisdiction with regard to aged and infirm persons came into the law about 1890, and that particular business has been growing ever since. The bulk of it is done in the offices of the Masters in Lunacy. The qualification of the Master in Lunacy is threefold, and I think that the Royal Commission on the Civil Service recommended that he should be a practising barrister of not less than ten years' standing, or a solicitor of the same standing. I do not want to pursue that matter beyond saying that it is a great advantage, if the choice
is sufficiently wide, that that should be so. There may be a word also to be said with regard to the office of Taxing Master, who performs functions with which most Members of this House are probably unacquainted, and which, therefore, being a technical matter, may be more properly discussed during the Committee stage of the Bill. With regard to the territorial jurisdiction of probate registries, I would ask the Attorney-General to take into account what I have ventured to say, and, subject to that, and to the assurance with regard to juries, so far as those for whom I have the honour to speak are concerned, I hope the Bill will receive a Second Reading.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. FOOT: I wish to refer to the subject raised by the last speaker as to Clause 11. I hope some regard will be had to the claims of these several districts. The Act of 1857 expressly stated what the district registries should be. That was done by an Act of Parliament, and of course this House had its say in the passing of the Bill. What I object to in the present Bill is that instead of deciding what the new district registries shall be by an Act of Parliament we put it entirely in the hands of the President of the Probate Division, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor. I think it should be made a Schedule to some Bill passed in this House, so that the several districts concerned might be able to express their objection through their representatives in the House. A decision affecting very substantially the interests of a locality may be made by the President of the Probate Division with the concurrence, of the Lord Chancellor, and any protest of the locality may be entirely unavailing. I have read the Report of Mr. Justice Tomlin's Committee, but I think a very real convenience is served by these district registries. It means that in many cases in the locality, without the intervention of solicitors or without any local help at all, people in poorer circumstances can get help in having their wills proved. That is a convenience which is much appreciated by poor people, and if you take a district registry and move it many miles away you will put these poorer people to an expense they can ill afford to bear, and I think the total saving that is sketched in that Report, something over £8,000, will perhaps not altogether compensate for the additional
expense to which sometimes these people will be put. There is strong pressure being brought to bear upon several localities. I know that several towns which were affected by the proposals of Mr. Justice Tomlin's Committee were circular-ised, and if it were not that I desire that the Attorney-General may have an opportunity of replying as soon as possible I should like to show how vigorous those protests were from the different parts of the country which were affected. I am doubtful whether there will be a very substantial saving. I think it is certain that real inconvenience will be caused sometimes to those who can least bear inconvenience, and I ask that the Attorney-General may consider Clause 11 upstairs so that any protests which a locality concerned desires to make may be made effective. With all respect to the Lord Chancellor and the President of the Probate Division, I think where in the Act of 1857 this House decided where the district registry should be and made a Schedule in the Act of Parliament, we ought not to take that power entirely away from it now and give it to two very highly placed and distinguished persons over whose decisions we shall have no control and against whose decisions the localities will not be able to make any availing protest. I hope some Amendment will be made upstairs and that the rights of these authorities, which go back not merely to 1857 but succeeded to earlier rights going back for centuries, should not be put in jeopardy.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I should have intervened in the Debate some three hours ago were it not for two reasons. One was the considerable number of Members who obviously desired to speak, and I did not like to do anything which might tend to curtail their privileges or opportunities. The other was that both the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, having made very eloquent and forcible speeches and then found that their duties compelled them to be elsewhere for some two hours or so, I found it impossible to make a statement on which I could ask them to withdraw their Amendment. I understand that the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) is not satisfied that my original statement was plain and straightforward
as to the intention of restoring the right of trial by jury which existed prior to the Act of 1918. When the last debate came in in 1923, if I had been able to be present I should have voted in favour of the Amendment, because the late Attorney-General was unable to give the undertaking which I thought I gave and which I now repeat. I intend, as far as I can, to ensure that the right to trial by jury which existed prior to 1918 is restored by this Bill, and I propose to take every step in my power to bring that about. In those days the right was ensured by orders and rules, which of necessity had a certain amount of elasticity. This is an Act of Parliament which gives an inalienable right to the subject of trial by jury and therefore one has to be very careful to see that in restoring that right you do not do something which may do an injury by reason of the fact that you cannot alter it from time to time. That is why I think under the present system it is far better to deal with this in Committee. It is not a party question. It has nothing to do with politics.
One hon. Member said the Attorney-General took a remarkable course. I do not care whether he did or not. I think the right course is to try to put on record now a method which will be acceptable to all lawyers in the House. It is far better that it should be done upstairs where it can be discussed, and I should be only too glad to have it discussed in my own room in order that we may see whether those who ought to know, and as I gather from the Debate those who are most interested in the details of it, could arrive at something which will give satisfaction. I regret to say I cannot support the view that there should be a right to trial by a Judge alone, though I quite agree there is a good deal to be said for the statement that if you have a very bad case you had better try your luck with a jury, but notwithstanding that, I have come to the conclusion that the right to trial by jury, with all its defects, is far better than any other trial. Therefore I have made it quite plain, that as far as the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich is concerned, I am prepared, I think, to go as far as even he would wish. I hope, therefore, that he and the hon. Member who supported him, who I do not think has moved up,
but has moved out, will see their way to withdraw the Amendment.
May I just make one general remark with regard to some of the points in speeches made by hon. Members? There have been one or two observations with regard to the circuit system. I do not remember them all, but if there is anything to be discussed on that subject, I hope hon. Members will agree that they can be dealt with upstairs. For example, one hon. Member expressed the difficulty in his mind as to what would happen supposing the Lord Chief Justice decided that no Assize should be held on a particular day. I would suggest to him that under the Act of 1876, which is expressly referred to in Sub-section (2) of Clause I of this Bill, it is laid down quite clearly that any matters (including any of the matters mentioned in paragraph (3) of Section two of the Winter Assizes Act, 1876) for which it appears to the Lord Chief Justice to be necessary or proper to make provision, may be included in an order made under the Section, with a view to giving full effect to the order.
I have received a good many communications, and I know there is a good deal of feeling about these matters. I am most anxious that this Bill shall not be regarded as a party Bill at all. The Labour party are no more concerned with this Bill than anybody else. We only desire, if we can, to do something which will advance the principles for which the Bill stands. I can only add that in Committee I shall be thoroughly prepared to discuss any matter. There is no reason why any of the suggestions which have been made should be matters for the Government Whips, and if there is to be a Division on any of them, they can, as far as I can see, all be decided by a free vote.

Sir K. WOOD: I apologise to the Attorney-General for not sharing the vigil of the Government Bench with him during the whole of the proceedings. I think the House can now be satisfied that we have had an explicit assurance from the Attorney-General on a matter about which we are all very anxious and concerned. In these circumstances, I do not press my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time" put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

PACIFIC CABLE BOARD BILL.

Not amended (in the Standing Committee) considered; read the Third time, and passed.

MARRIAGES VALIDITY (PROVISIONAL ORDERS) BILL [Lords].

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [12th May], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

The remaining Orders were, read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Parkinson.]

Captain BENN: Is it really necessary for the Government Whip to move, "That this House do now adjourn" when we have an hour to spare, which may usefully be devoted to some of the private Members Bills? I have, for example, a Bill on the Paper dealing with the question of evictions. The Government have told us they can do no more. Surely a short hour might be devoted to a discussion of the merits of the Bill. Of course, if the Government Whip informs me that this is by arrangement, through what is called the "usual channels," I shall sit down at once. I am now informed that there has been an arrangement through the usual channels. In that case I withdraw my objection.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Ten Minutes after Ten o'Clock.